SPEECH 


OF 

SENATOR  DOUGLAS, 

OF  ILLINOIS, 

% 

ON  THE 

PACIFIC  RAILROAD  BILL. 


DELIVERED  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  APRIL  17,  1858. 


The  Senate  having  under  consideration  the  bill  to'  authorize  the  President  of 
the  United  States  to  contract  for  the  transportation  of  the  mails,  troops,  seamen, 
munitions  of  war,  and  all  other  Government  service,  by  railroad ,  from  the  Mis¬ 
souri  river  to  San  Francisco,  in  the  State  of  California — Mr.  DOUGLAS  said: 

Mr.  President:  I  have  witnessed  with  deep  regret  the  indications  that  thig 
measure  is  to  be  defeated  at  the  present  session  of  Congress.  I  had  hoped  that 
this  Congress  would  signalize  itself  by  inaugurating  the  great  measure  of  con¬ 
necting  the  Mississippi  valley  with  the  Pacific  ocean  by  a  railroad.  I  had 
supposed  that  the  people  of  the  United  States  had  decided  the  question  at  the 
last  presidential  election  in  a  manner  so  emphatic  as  to  leave  no  doubt  that 
their  will  was  to  be  carried  into  effect.  I  believe  that  all  the  presidential  candi¬ 
dates  at  the  last  election  were  committed  to  the  measure.  All  the  presidential 
platforms  sanctioned  it  as  a  part  of  their  creed.  I  believe  it  is  about  the  only 
measure  on  which  there  was  entire  unanimity ;  and  it  is  a  very  curious  fact  that 
the  measure  which  commanded  universal  approbation — the  measure  upon  which 
all  parties  united;  a  measure  against  which  no  man  could  be  found,  previous 
to  the  election,  to  raise  his  voice — should  be  the  one  that  can  receive  no  sup¬ 
port,  nor  the  cooperation  of  any  one  party,  while  disputed  measures  can  oc¬ 
cupy  the  whole  time  of  Congress,  rand  can  be  carried  through  successfully.  I 
make  no  complaint  of  any  political  party,  nor  of  any  gentleman  who  opposes 
this  bill;  but  it  did  strike  me  that  it  was  a  fact  to  be  noticed,  that  a  measure 
of  this  description,  so  long  before  the  country,  so  well  understood  by  the  peo¬ 
ple,  and  receiving  such  universal  sanction  from  them,  should  not  be  carried  into 
effect.  If  the  bill  which  has  been  devised  by  the  committee  is  not  the  best  that 
can  be  framed,  let  it  be  amended  and  modified  until  its  objectionable  features 
shall  be  removed.  Let  us  not  make 'a  test  question  of  this  particular  form  of 
bill  or  that  particular  form ;  of  this  particular  route  or  that  particular  route ; 
of  the  benefits  to  this  section  or  that  section.  If  there  is  anything  wsong  in 
the  details,  in  the  form,  in  the  construction  of  the  bill,  let  the  objectionable 
features  be  removed,  and  carry  out  the  great  object  of  a  railroad  communi¬ 
cation  between  the  Mississippi  valley  and  the  Pacific  oceaD. 

Various  objections  have  been  raised  to  this  bill,  some  referring  to  the  route, 
involving  .sectional  considerations ;  others  to  the  form  of  the  bill ;  others  to  the 
present  ‘time  as  inauspicious  for  the  construction  ol  such  a  railroad  under  any 
circumstances.  Sir,  I  have  examined  this  bill  very  carefully.  I  was  a  member 


2 


of  the  committee  that  framed  it,  and  I  gave  my  cordial  assent  to  the  report.  I 
am  free  to  say  that  I  think  it  is  the  best  bill  that  has  ever  been  reported  to  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States  for  the  construction  of  a  Pacific  railroad.  I  say 
this  with  entire  disinterestedness,  for  I  have  heretofore  reported  several  myself, 
and  I  believe  I  have  invariablv  been  a  member  of  the  committees  that  have  re¬ 
ported  such  bills.  I  am  glad  to  find  that  we  have  progressed  to  such  an  extent 
as  to  be  able  to  improve  on  the  former  bills  that  have,  from  time  to  time,  been 
brought  before  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  This  may  not  be. perfect.  It 
is  difficult  to  make  human  legislation  entirely  perfect;  at  any  rate,  to  so  con¬ 
struct  it  as  to  bring  about  an  entire  unanimity  of  opinion  upon  a  question  that 
involves,  to  some  extent,  selfish,  sectional,  and  partisan  considerations^  But,  sir, 
I  Think  this  lull  is  fair.  First,  it  is  fair  in  the  location  of  the  route,  as  between 
the  different  sections.  The  termini  are  fixed.  Then  the  route  between  the  ter¬ 
mini  is  to  be  left  to  the  contractors'  and  owners  of  the  road,  who  are  to  put 
their  capital  into  it,  and,  for  weal  or  for  woe,  are  to  be  responsible  for  its  man¬ 
agement. 

What  is  the  objection  to  these  termini  ?  San  Francisco,  upon  the  Pacific,  is 
not  only  central,  but  it  is  the  great  commercial  mart,  the  great  concentrating 
point,  the  great  efitrepot  for  the  commeree  of  the  Pacific,  not  only  in  the  pres¬ 
ent,  but  in  the  future.  That  point  was  selected  as  the  western  terminus,  for  the 
reason  that  there  seemed  to  be  a  unanimous  sentiment,  that  whatever  might  be 
the  starting  point  on  the  east,  the  system  would  not  be  complete  until  it  should 
reach  the  city  of  San  Francisco  on  the  west.  I  suggested  myself,  in  the  com¬ 
mittee,  the  selection  of  that  very  point;  not  that  I  had  any  objection  to  other 
points;  not  that  I  was  any  more  friendly  to  San  Francisco  and  her  inhabitants 
than  to  any  other  port  on  the  Pacific ;  but  because  I  believe  that  to  be  the  com¬ 
manding  port,  the  large  city  where  trade  concentrates,  and  its  position  indica¬ 
ted  it  as  the  proper  terminus  on  the  Pacific  ocean. 

Then,  in  regard  to  the  eastern  terminus,  a  point  on  the  Missouri  river  is  se¬ 
lected,  for  various  reasons.  One  is,  that  it  is  central  as  between  the  North  and 
South — as  nearly  central  as  could  be  selected.  It  was  necessary  to  commence 
on  the  Missouri  river,  if  you  were  going  to  take  a  central  route,  in  order  that 
the  starting  point  might  connect  with  navigation,  so  that  you  might  reach  it  by 
boats,  in  carrying  your  iron,  your  supplies,  and  your  materials,  for  the  com¬ 
mencement  and  the  construction  of  the  road.  It  was  essential  that  you  should 
commence  at  a  point  of  navigation  so  that  you  could  connect  with  the  sea¬ 
board.  If  you  start  it  at  a  point  back  in  the  interior  five  hundred  or  a  thou¬ 
sand  miles,  as  it  is  proposed,  at  El  Paso,  from  the  navigable  waters  of  the  Mis¬ 
sissippi,  it  would  cost  you  more  money  to  carry  the  iron,  provisions,  supplies, 
and  men  to  that  starting  point,;  than  it  would  to  make  a  road  from  the  Missis¬ 
sippi  to  the  starting  point,  in  order  to  begin  the  work.  In  that  case  it  would, 
be  a  matter  of  economy  to  make  a  road  to  your  starting  point  in  order  to  begin. 
Hence,  in  my  opinion,  it  would  be  an  act  of  folly  to  think  of  starting  a  railroad 
to  the  Pacific  at  a  point  eight  hundred  or  a  thousand  miles  in  the  interior,  away 
from  any  connection  with  navigable  water,  or  with  other  railroads  already  in 
existence. 

For  these  reasons  we  agreed  in  the  bill  to  commence  on  the  Missouri  river. 
When  yon  indicate  that  river,  a  little  diversity  of  opinion  arises  as  to  what  point 
on  the  river  shall  be  selected.  There  are  various  respectable,  thriving  towns  on 
either  bank  of  the  river,  each  of  which  thinks  it  is  the  exact  position  where  the 
road  ought  to  commence.  I  suppose  that  Kansas  City,  Wyandott,  Weston, 
Leavenworth,  Atchison,  Platte’s  Mouth  City,  Omaha,  De  Soto,  Sioux  City,  and 
various  other  towns  whose  names  have  not  become  familiar  to  us,  and  have 
found  no  resting-place  on  the  map,  each  thinks  that  it  has  the  exact  place  where 
the  road  should  begin.  Well,  sir,  I  do  not  desire  to  show  any  preference  be¬ 
tween  these  towns,  either  of  them  would  suit  me  very  well;  and  we  leave  it 
to  the  contractors  to  say  which  shall  be  the  one.  We  leave  the  exact  eastern 
terminus  open,  for  the  reason  that  the  public  interests  will  be  substantially  as 
well  served  by  the  selection  of  the  one  as  the  other.  It  is  not  so  at  the  western 
terminus.  San  Francisco  does  not  occupy  that  relation  to  the  towns  on  the 
Pacific  coast  that  these  little  towns  on  the  Missouri  river  do  to  the  country  east 


3 


of  the  Missouri,  ’the  public  have  no  material  interest  in  the  question  whether 
it  shall  start  at  the  mouth  of  the  Kansas,  at  Weston,  at  Leavenworth,  at  St. 
Joseph,  at  Platte’s  Mouth,  or  at  Sioux  City.  Either  connects  with  the  great 
lines;  either  woijd  be  substantially  central  as  between  North  and  South.  So 
far  as  I  am  concerned,  I  should  not  care  a  sixpence  which  of  those  towns  was 
selected  as  the  starting  point,  because  they  start  there  upon  a  plain  that 
Stretches  for  eight  hundred  miles,  and  can  connect  with  the  whole  railroad  sys¬ 
tem  of  the  country.  You  can  go  directly  west.  You  can  bend  to  the  north] 
and  connect  with  the  northern  roads,  or  bend  to  the  south  and  connect  with 
the  southern  roads. 

The  Senator  from  Georgia  (Mr.  Iverson)  would  be  satisfied,  as  I  understand^, 
with  the  termini,  if  we  had  selected  one  intermediate  point,  so  as  to  indicate 
the  route  that  should  be  taken  between  the  termini.  I  understand  that  he 
would  be  satisfied  if  we  should  indicate  that  it  should  go  south  of  Santa  Ed,-,  so 
-as  to  include  as  the  probable  line  the  Albuquerque  route,  or  the  one  oa.  the 
thirty-fifth  parallel,  or  the  one  south  of  it.  Sir,  I  am  free  to  say  that,  individ¬ 
ually,  I  should  have  no  objection  to  the.  route  indicated  by  the  Senator  from 
Georgia.  I  have  great  faith  that  the  Albuquerque  route  is  an  exceedingly 
favorable  one;  favorable  in  its  grades,  in  the  shortness  of  its  distances,  in  its 
climate,  the  absence  of  deep  snow,  and  in  the  topography  of  the  country..  While 
it  avoids  very  steep  grades,  it  furnishes,  perhaps,  as  much  of  grass,  of  timber,  of 
water,  of  materials  necessary  for  the  construction  and  repair  of  the  road,  if  not 
.more  than  any  other  route.  As  a  Northern  man,  living  upon  the  great  line  of.' 
the  lakes,  you  cannot  indicate  a  route  that  I  think  would  subserve  our.  interests, 
and  the  great  interests  of  this  country,  better  than  that;  yet,  if  I  expressed  the- 
opinion  that  the  line  Ought  to  go  on  that  route  between  the  termini,  some  other- 
man  would  say  it  ought  to  go  on  Governor  Steven’s  extreme  northern  route ;; 
some  one  else  would  say  it  ought  to  go  on  the  South  Pass  route ;  and  we  should, 
divide  the  friends  of  the  measure  as  to  the  point  at  which  the  road  should  pass- 
the  mountains — -whether  at  the  extreme  north,  at  the  center,  the  Albuquerque- 
route,  or  the  further  southern  one  down  in  Arizona — and  we  should  be  unable: 
to  decide  between  ourselves  which  was  best. 

I  have  sometimes  thought  that  the  extreme  northern  route*  known  as- the- 
Stevens’  route,  was  the  best,  as  furnishing  better,  grass,  more  timber,,  more- 
water,  more  of  those  elements  necessary  in  constructing,  repairing,  operating, 
and  maintaining  a  road,  than  any  other.  I  think  now  that  the-  preference, 
merely  upon  routes,  is  between  the  northern  or  Stevens’  route  on  the  one  side, 
mid  the  Albuquerque  route  on  the  other.  Still,  as  I  never  expect  to  put  a. 
dollar  of  money  into  the  road,  as  I  never  expect  to  have  any  agency  or  connec¬ 
tion  with  or  interest  in  it,  1  am  willing  to  leave  the  selection  of  the  route  be¬ 
tween  the  termini  to  those  who  are  to  put  their  fortunes*  and  connect  their- 
character,  with  the  road,  and  to  be  responsible,  in  the  most  tender  of  all  points, 
if  they  make  a  mistake  in  the  selection.  But  for  these  considerations,  I  should 
have,  cheerfully  yielded  to  the  suggestion  of  the  Senator  from  Georgia,  to-  fix  the 
crossing  point  on  the  Rio  Grande  river. 

But,  sir,  I  am  unwilling  to  lose  this  great  measure  merely  because  of  a  dif¬ 
ference  of  opinion  as  to  what  shall  be  the.  pass  selected  in  the  Rocky  Mountains 
through  which  the  road  shall  run.  I  believe  it  is  a  great  national  measure,.  L 
believe  it  is  the  greatest  practical  measure  now  pending  before  the  country-  I. 
believe  that  we  have  arrived  at  that  period  in  our  history  when  our  great  suite 
stantial  interests  require  it.  The  interests  of  commerce,  the  great  interests  of 
travel  and  communication — those  still  greater  interests  that  bind  the  Union 
together,  and  are  to  make  and  preserve  the  continent  as  one  and  indivisible— 
all  demand  that  this  road  shall  be  commenced,  prosecuted,  and  completed,  at 
the  earliest  practicable  moment. 

I  am  unwilling  to  postpone  the  bill  until  next  December.  I  have  seen  these 
postponements  from  session  to  session,  for  the  last  eight  or  ten  years,  with  the 
confident  assurance  every  year  that  at  the  next  session  we  should  have  abundance 
of  time  to  take  up  the  bill  and  act  upon  it.  Sir,  will  you  be  better  prepared  at 
the  next  session  than  now  ?  We  have  now  the  whole  summer  before  us,  draw-* 


4 


ing  our  pay,  and  proposing  to  perform  no  service.  Next  December,  you  will 
"have  but  ninety  days,  with  all  the  unfinished  business  left  over,  your  appropria¬ 
tion  bills  on  hand,  and  not  only  the  regular  bills,  but  the  new  deficiency  bill ; 
and  you  will  postpone  this  measure  again,  for  the  want  of  time  to  consider  it 
then.  I  think,  sir,  we  had  better  grapple  with  the  difficulties  that  surround 
this  question  now,  when  it  is  fairly  before  us,  when  we  have  time  to  consider  it, 
and  when  I  think  we  can  act  upon  it  as  dispassionately,  as  calmly,  as  wisely,  as 
we  shall  ever  be  able  to  do. 

I  have  regretted  to  see  the  question  of  sectional  advantages  brought  into 
this  discussion.  If  you  are  to  have  but  one  road,  fairness  and  justice  would 
plainly  indicate  that  that  one  should  be  located  as  near  the  center  as  practi¬ 
cable.  The  Missouri  river  is  as  near  the  center  and  the  line  of  this  road  is  as 
near  as  it  can  be  made;  and  if  there  is  but  one  to  be  made,  the  route  now  indi¬ 
cated,  in  my  opinion,  is  fair,  is  just,  and  ought  to  be  taken.  I  have  heretofore 
been  of  the  opinion  that  we  ought  to  have  three  roads:  one  in  the  centre,  one 
in  the  extreme  south,  and  one  in  the  extreme  north.  If  I  thought  we  could 
carry  the  three,  and  could  execute  them  in  any  reasonable  time,  I  would  now 
adhere  to  that  policy  and  preterit;  but  I  have  seen  enough  here  during  this 
session  of  Congress  to  satisfy  me  that  but  one  can  pass,  and  to  ask  for  three  at 
this  time  is  to  lose  the  whole.  Believing  that  that  is  the  temper,  that  that  is 
the  feeling,  and,  I  will  say,  the  judgment,  of  the  members  of  both  Houses  of 
Congress,  I  prefer  to  take  one  road  rather  than  to  lose  all  in  the  vain  attempt 
to  get  three.  If  there  were  to  be  three,  of  course  the  one  indicated  in  this  bill 
would  be  the  central  ;  one  would  be  north  of  it,  and  another  south  of  it.  But 
if  there  is  to  be  but  one,  the  central  one  should  be  taken;  for  the  north,  by 
bending  a  little  down  south,  camj  oin  it,  and  the  south,  by  leaning  a  little  to 
the  north,  can  unite  with  it  too;  ana  our  Southern  friends  ought  to  be  able  to 
bend  and  lean  a  little,  as  well  as  to  require  us  to  bend  and  lean  all  the  time,  in 
■order  to  join  them.  The  central  position  is  the  just  one,  if  there  is  to  be  but 
•one  road.  The  concession  should  be  as  much  on  the  one  side  as  on  the  other. 
I  am  ready  to  meet  gentlemen  half  way  on  every  question  that  does  not  violate 
principle,  and  they  ought  not  to  ask  us  to  meet  them  more  than  half  way  where 
there  is  no  principle  involved  and  nothing  but  expediency. 

Then,  sir,  why  not  unite  upon  this  bill?  We  are  told  it  is  going  to  involve 
the  -Government  of  the  United  States  in  countless  millions  of  expenditure. 
How  is  that?  Certainly  not  under  this  bill,  not  by  authority  of  this  bill,  not 
without  violating  this  bill.  The  bill  under  consideration  provides  that  when 
:a  section  of  the  road  shall  be  made,  the  Government  may  advance  a  portion  of 
the  lands.,  and  $12,500  per  mile  in  bonds  on  the  section  thus  made,  in  order  to 
aid  in  the  construction  of  the  next,  holding  a  lien  upon  the  road  for  the  refund¬ 
ing  of  the  money  thus  advanced.  Under  this  bill  it  is  not  possible,  that  the 
contractors  can  ever  obtain  more  than  $12,500  per  mile  on  each  mile  of  the 
road  that  is  completed.  It  is,  therefore,  very  easy  to  compute  the  cost  to  the 
Government.  Take  the  length  of  the  road  in  miles,  and  multiply  it  by  $12,500, 
and  you  have  the  cost.  If  you  make  the  computation,  you  will  find  it  will 
come  to  a  fraction,  over  twenty  million  dollars.  The  limitation  in  the  bill  is, 
that  in  no  event  shall  it  exceed  $25,000,000.  Therefore,  by  the  terms  of  the 
bill,  the  undertaking  of  the  Government  is  confined  to  $25,000,000;  and,  by 
the  •calculation,  it  will  be  less  than  that  sum.  Is  that  a  sum  that  would  bank¬ 
rupt  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States? 

I  predict  t®  you  now,  sir,  that  the  Mormon  campaign  has  cost,  and  has  led  to 
engagements  and  undertakings  that,  when  redeemed,  will  cost  more  than 
twenty-five  million  dollars,  if  not  double  that  sum.  During  the  last  six  months, 
©n;aocount  of  the  Mormon  rebellion,  expenses have  been  paid,  and  undertakings 
have  been  assumed,  which  will  cost  this  Government  more  than  the  total  ex¬ 
penditure  which  .can  possibly  be  made  in  conformity  with  the  provisions  of 
this  bill.  If  you  had  had  this  railroad  made  you  would  have  saved  the  whole 
cost  which  the  Government  is  to  advance  in  this  little  Mormon  war  alone.  If 
you  'have  a  general  Indian  war  in  the  mountains,  it  will  cost  you  twice  the 
.amount  called  far  ’by  this  bill.  If  you  should  have  a  war  with  a  European 


5 


Power,  the  construction  of  this  road  would  save  many  fold  its  cost  in  the  trans¬ 
portation  of  troops  and  munitions  of  war  to  the  Pacific  ocean,  in  carrying  on 
your  operations. 

In  an  economical  point  of  view,  I  look  upon  it  as  a  wise  measure.  It  is  one 
of  economy  as  a  war  measure  alone,  or  as  a  peace  measure  for  the  purpose  of 
preventing  a  war.  Whether  viewed  as  a  war  measure,  to  enable  yon  to  check 
rebellion  in  a  territory,  or  hostilities  with  the  Indians,  or  to  carry  on  vigorously 
a  war  with  a  European  Power,  or  viewed  as  a  peace  measure,  it  is  a  wise  policy, 
dictated  by  every  consideration  of  public  convenience  and  public  good. 

Again,  sir,  in  carrying  the  mails,  it  is  an  economical  measure.  As  the  Senator 
from  Georgia  has  demonstrated,  the  cost  of  carrying  the  mails  alone  to  the 
Pacific  ocean  for  thirty  years,  under  the  present  contracts,  is  double  the  amount 
of  (he  whole  expenditure  under  this  bill  for  the  same  time  in  the  construction 
and  working  of  the  road.  In  the  transportation  of  mails,  then,  it  would  save 
twice  its  cost.  The  transportation  of  army  and  navy  supplies  would  swell  the 
amount  three  or  four-fold.  How  many  years  will  it  be  before  the  Government 
will  receive  back,  in  transportation,  the  whole  cost  of  this  advance  of  aid  in  the 
construction  of  the  road? 

But,  sir,  some  gentlemen  think  it  is  an  unsound  policy,  leading  to  the  doctrine 
of  internal  improvements  by  the  Federal  Government  within  the  different 
States  of  the  Union.  We  are  told  we  must  confine  the  road  to  the  limits  of  the 
Territories,  and  not  extend  it  into  the  States,  because  it  is  supposed  that  enter¬ 
ing  a  State  with  this  contract  violates  some  great  principle  of  State-rights. 
Mr.  President,  the  committee  considered  that  proposition,  and  they  avoided 
that  objection,  in  the  estimation  of  the  most  strict,  rigid,  tight-laced  State- 
rights  men  that  we  have  in  the  body.  We  struck  out  the  provision  in  the  bill 
first  drawn,  that  the  President  should  contract  for  the  construction  of  a  railroad 
from  the  Missouri  river  to  the  Pacific  ocean ;  and  followed  an  example  that  we 
found  on  the  statute-book,  for  carrying  the  mails  from  Alexandria  to  Richmond, 
Virginia — an  act  passed  about  the  time  when  the  resolutions  of  1798  were 
adopted,  and  the  report  of  1799  was  made — an  act  that  we  thought  came  ex¬ 
actly  within  the  spirit  of  those  resolutions.  That  act,  according  to  my  recol¬ 
lection,  was,  that  the  Department  be  authorized  to  contract  for  the  transporta¬ 
tion  of  the  United  States  mail  by  four-horse  post-coaches,  with  closed  backs,  so 
as  to  protect  it  from  the  weather  and  rain,  from  Alexandria  to  Richmond,  in 
the  State  of  Virginia.  It  occurred  to  this  committee  that  if  it  had  been  the 
custom,  from  the  beginning  of  this  Government  to  this  day,  to  make  contracts 
for  the  transportation  of  the  mails  in  four-horse  post-coaches,  built  in  a  particu¬ 
lar  manner,  and  the  contractor  left  to  furnish  his  own  coaches  and  his  own 
horses,  and  his  own  means  of  transportation,  we  might  make  a  similar  contract 
for  the  transportation  of  the  mails  by  railroad  from  one  point  to  another, 
leaving  the  contractor  to  make  his  own  railroad,  and  furnish  his  own  cars,  and 
comply  with  the  terms  of  the  contract. 

There  is  nothing  in  this  bill  that  violates  any  one  principle  which  has  pre¬ 
vailed  in  every  mail  contract  that  has  been  made,  from  the  days  of  Dr.  Frank¬ 
lin  down  to  the  elevation  of  James  Buchanan  to  the  Presidency.  Every  con¬ 
tract  for  carrying  the  mail  by  horse,  from  such  a  point  to  such  a  point,  in 
saddle-bags,  involves  the  same  principle.  Every  contract  for  carrying  it  from 
such  a  point  to  such  a  point  in  two-horse  hacks,  with  a  covering  to  protect  it 
from  the  storm,  involves  the  same  principle.  Every  contract  to  carry  it  from 
such  a  point  to  such  a  point  in  four-horse  coaches  of  a  particular  description, 
involves  the  same  principle.  You  contracted  to  carry  the  mails  from  New 
York  to  Liverpool  in  ships  of  two  thousand  tons  each,  to  be  constructed  ac¬ 
cording  to  a  model  prescribed  by  the  Navy  Department,  leaving  the  contractor 
to  furnish  his  own  ships,  and  receive  so  much  pay.  That  involves  the  same 
principle. 

You  have,  therefore,  carried  out  the  principle  of  this  bill  in  every  contract 
you  have  ever  had  for  mails,  whether  it  be  upon  the  land  or  upon  the  water. 
In  every  mail  contract  you  have  had,  you  have  carried  out  the  identical  princi¬ 
ple  involved  in  this  bill — simply  the  right  to  contract  for  the  transportation  of 
the  United  States  mails,  troeps,  munitions  of  war,  army  and  navy  supplies,  at 


e 


fair  prices,  in  the  manner  you  prescribed,  leaving  the  contracting  party  to 
furnish  the  mode  and  means  of  transportation.  That  is  all  there  is  in  it.  I  do  * 

not  see  how  it  can  violate  any  party  creed ;  how  it  can  violate  any  principle  of 
State-rights;  how  it  can  interfere  with  any  man’s  conscientious  scruples. 

Then,  sir,  where  is  the  objection  ? 

If  you  look  on  this  as  a  measure  of  economy  and  a  commercial  measure,  the 
argument  is  all  in  favor  of  the  bill.  It  is  true,  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts 
has  suggested  that  it  is  idle  to  suppose  that  the  trade  of  China  is  to  center  in 
San  Francisco,  and  then  pay  sixty  dollars  a  ton  for  transportation  across  the 
continent  by  a  railroad  to  Boston.  It  was  very  natural  that  he  should  indicate 
Boston,  as  my  friend  from  Georgia  might,  perhaps,  have  thought  of  Savannah, 
or  my  friend  from  South  Carolina  might  have  indicated  Charleston,  or  the  Sena¬ 
tor  from  Louisiana  might  have  indicated  New  Orleans.  But  I,  living  at  the 
head  of  the  great  lakes,  would  have  made  the  computation  from  Chicago,  and 
my  friend  from  Missouii  would  have  thought  it  would  have  been  very  well, 
perhaps,  to  take  it  from  St.  Louis.  When  you  are  making  this  computation,  I 
respectfully  submit  you  must  make  the  calculation  from  the  sea-board  to  the 
center  of  the  continent,  and  not  charge  transportation  all  the  wa}’  from  the 
Atlantic  to  the  Pacific ;  for  suppose  you  do  not  construct  this  road,  and  these 
goods  come  by  ship  to  Boston,  it  will  coat  something  to  take  them  bv  railroad 
to  Chicago,  and  a  little  more  to  take  them  by  railroad  to  the  Missouri  river, 
half-way  back  to  San  Francisco  again.  If  you  select  the  center  of  the  conti¬ 
nent,  the  great  heart  and  center  of  the  Republic — the  Mississippi  valley — as 
the  point  at  which  you  are  to  concentrate  your  trade,  and  from  which  it  is  to 
diverge,  you  will  find  that  the  transportation  to  it  by  railroad  would  not  be 
much  greater  from  San  Francisco  than  from  Boston.  It  would  be  nearly  the 
safne  from  the  Pacific  that  it  is  from  the  Atlantic ;  and  the  calculation  must  be  » 

made  in  that  point  of  view.  There  is  the  center  of  consumption,  and  the  center 
of  those  great  products  that  are  sent  abroad  in  all  quarters  to  pay  for  articles 
imported.  The  center  of  production,  the  center  of  consumption,  the  future 
center  of  the  population  of  the  continent,  is  the  point  to  which,  and  from 
which,  your  calculation  should  be  made. 

Then,  sir,  if  it  costs  sixty  dollars  per  ton  for  transportation  from  San  Francisco 
to  Boston  by  railroad,  half-way  yotl  may  say  it  will  cost  thirty  dollars  a  ton. 

The  result,  then,  of  coming  from  San  Francisco  to  the  center  b}7  railroad,  would 
be  to  save  transportation  by  ship  from  San  Francisco  to  Boston,  in  addition  to 
the  railroad  transportation  into  the  interior. 

But,  sir,  I  dissent  from  a  portion  of  the  gentleman’^  argument,  so  far  as  it  re¬ 
lates  to  transportation  even  from  San  Francisco  to  Boston.  I  admit  that  heavy 
articles  of  cheap  value  and  great  hulk,  would  go  by  ship,  that  being  the  cheapest 
mode  of  communication;  but  light  articles,  costly  articles,  expensive  articles, 
those  demanded  immediately,  and  subject  to  decay  from  long  voyages  and  de¬ 
lays,  would  come  directly  across  by  railroad,  and  what  you  would  save  in  time 
would  be  more  than  the  extra  expense  of  the  transportation.  You  must  add  to 
that  the  risk  of  the  tropics,  which  destroys  many  articles,  and  that  process 
which  is  necessary  to  be  gone  through  with  to  prepare  articles  for  the  sea- voy¬ 
age,  is  to  be  taken  into  the  account.  I  have  had  occasion  to  witness  that  evil 
in  one  article  of  beverage  very  familiar  to  you  all.  Let  any  man  take  one  cup 
of  tea  that  came  from  China  to  Russia  overland,  without  passing  twice  under 
the  equator,  and  he  will  never  be  reconciled  to  a  cup  of  tea  that  has  passed 
under  the  equator.  The  genuine  article,  that  has  not  been  manipulated  and 
prepared  to  pass  under  the  equator,  is  worth  tenfold  more  than  that  which  we 
receive  here.  Preparation  is  necessary  to  enable  it  to  pass  the  tropics,  and  the 
long,  damp  voyage  makes  as  much  difference  in  the  article  of  tea  as  the  difference 
between  a  green  apple  and  a  dried  apple,  green  corn  and  dried  corn,  sent  abroach 
So  you  will  find  it  to  be  with  fruits ;  so  it  will  be  with  all  the  expensive  and 
precious  articles,  and  especially  those  liable  to  decay  and  to  injury,  either  by 
eamosure  to  a  tropical  climate,  or  to  the  moisture  of  a  long  sea-voyage. 

Then,  sir,  in  a  commercial  point  of  view,  this  road  will  be  of  vast  importance. 

There  is  another  consideration  that  I  will  allude  to  for  a  moment.  It  will  ex¬ 
tend  our  trade  more  than  any  other  measure  that  you  can  devise,  certainly  more 


7 


than  any  one  that  you  now  have  in  contemplation.  The  people  are  all  anxious 
for  the  annexation  of  Cuba  so  soon  as  it  can  be  obtained  on  fair  and  honorable 
terms — and  why?  In  order  to  get  the  small,  pitiful  trade  of  that  Island.  We 
ail  talk  about  the  great  importance  of  Central  America,  in  order  to  extend  our 
commerce;  it  is  valuable  to  the  extent  it  goes.  But  Cuba,  Central  AhVerica, 
and  all  the  islands  surrounding  them,  put  together,  are  not  ,a  thousandth  part 
of  the  value  of  the  great  East  India  trade  that  would:  be  drawn  first  to  our 
western  coast,  and  then  across  to  the  valley  of  the  Mississippi,  if  this  railroad 
be  constructed.  Sir,  if  we  intend  to  extend  our  commerce ;  if  we  intend  to 
make  the  great  ports  of  the  world  tributary  to  our  wealth,  we  must  prosecute 
our  trade  eastward  or  westward,  as  you  please;  we  must  penetrate  the  Pacific, 
its  islands,  and  its  continent,  where  the  great  mass  of  the  human  family  reside — 
where  the  articles  that  have  built  up  the  powerful  nations  of  the  world  have 
always  come  from.  That  is  the  direction  in  which  we  should  look  for  the  ex¬ 
pansion  of  our  commerce  and  of  our  trade.  That  is  the  direction  our  public 
policy  should  take — a  direction  that  is  facilitated  by  the  great  work  now  pro¬ 
posed  to  be  made. 

I  care  not  whether  you  look  at  it  in  a  commercial  point  of  view,  as  a  matter 
of  administrative  economy  at  home,  as  a  question  of  military  defense,  or  in  refer¬ 
ence  to  the  building  up  of  the  national  wealth,  and  power,  and  glory;  it  is  the 
great  measure  of  the  age — a  measure,  that  in  my  opinion  has  been  postponed 
too  long — and  I  frankly  confess  to  you,  that  I  regard  the  postponement  to  next 
December  to  mean,  till  after  the  next  presidential  election.  No  man  hopes  or 
expects,  when  you  have  not  time  to  pass  it  in  the  early  spring,  at  the  long  ses¬ 
sion,  that  you  are  going  to  consider  it  at  the  short  session.  When  you  come 
here  at  the  next  session,  the  objection  will  be  that  you  must  not  bring  forward 
a  measure  of  this  magnitude,  because  it  will  affect  the  political  relations  of 
parties,  and  it  will  be  postponed  then,  as  it  was  two  years  ago,  to  give  the  glory 
to  the  incoming  Administration,  each  party  probably  thinking  that  it  would 
have  the  honor  of  carrying  out  the  measure.  Hence,  sir,  I  regard  the  proposi¬ 
tion  of  postponement  till  December,  to  mean  till  after  the  election  of  1860. 

I  desire  to  see  all  the  pledges  made  in  the  last  contest  redeemed  during  this 
term,  and  let  the  next  President,  and  the  parties  under  him,  redeem  the  pledges 
and  obligations  assumed  during  the  next  campaign.  The  people  of  all  parties 
at  the  last  presidential  election  decreed  that  this  road  was  to  be  made.  The 
question  is  now  before  us.  We  have  time  to  consider  it.  We  have  all  the 
means  necessary,  as  much  now  as  we  can  have  at  any  other  time.  The  Senator 
from  Massachusetts  intimates  that  the  treasury  being  bankrupt  now,  we  can¬ 
not  afford  the  money.  That  Senator  also  remarked  that  we  were  just  emerging 
from  a  severe  commercial  crisis — a  great  commercial  revulsion — which  had 
carried  bankruptcy  in  its  train.  If  we  have  just  emerged  from,  it,  if  we  have 
passed  it,  this  is  the  very  time  of  all  others  when  a  great  enterprise  should  be 
begun.  It  might  have  been  argued  when  we  saw  that  crisis  coming,  before  it 
reached  us,  that  we  should  furl  our  sails  and  trim  our  ship  for  the  approaching 
storm ;  but  when  it  has  exhausted  its  rage,  when  all  the  mischief  has  been 
done  that  could  be  inflicted,  when  the  bright  sun  of  day  is  breaking  forth,  when 
the  sea  is  becoming  calm,  and  there  is  but  little  visible  of  the  past  tempest, 
when  the  nausea  of  sea-sickness  is  succeeded  by  joyous  exhilaration,  inspired 
by  the  hope  of  a  fair  voyage,  let  men  feel  elated  and  be  ready  to  commence  a 
great  work  like  this,  so  as  to  complete  it  before  another  commercial  crisis  or 
revulsion  shall  come  upon  us. 

Sir,  if  ymu  pass  this  bill  no  money  can  be  expended  under  it  until  one  section 
of  the  road  has  been  made.  The  surveys  must  be  completed,  the  route  must 
be  located,  the  land  set  aside  and  surveyed,  and  a  section  of  the  road  made, 
before  a  dollar  can  be  drawn  from  the  treasury.  If  you  pass  the  bill  now,  it 
cannot  make  any  drain  on  the  treasury  for  at  least  two  years  to  come ;  and 
who  doubts  that  all  the  effects  of  the  late  crisis  will  have  passed  away  before 
the  expiration  of  those  two  years. 

Mr.  President,  this  is  the  auspicious  time,  either  with  a  view  to  the  interests 
of  the  country,  or  to  that  stagnation  which  exists  between  political  parties, 


8 


which  is  calculated  to  make  it  a  measure  of  the  country  rather  than  a  partisan 
measure,  or  to  the  commercial  and  monetary  affairs  of  the  nation,  or  with 
reference  to  the  future.  Look  upon  it  in  any  point  of  view,  now  is  the  time ; 
and  I  am  glad  that  the  Senator  from  Louisiana  has  indicated,  as  I  am  told  he 
has,  that  the  motion  for  postponement  is  a  test  question ;  for  I  confess  I  shall 
regard  it  as  a  test  vote  on  a  Pacific  railroad  during  this  term,  whatever  it  may 
he  in  the  future.  I  hope  that  we  shall  pass  the  bill  now. 


.«'  i' 


!'fk  tfrt  /' 

u  ;  .'-ri-Htrir"  .  v<»  or  >  1 

:  *j  //  .tljfifl*;  //  O  >  /  ", 

■ 

•j  1  i" 1  |  un  >  */  t  •  ■  ‘j  th 

>  imuunl  oft  •vi.!  ;)•:*» 

•  1  • .  :• 

}  11,  '  •  • 

nit  . |if  iLtiJ'i  0  n 

-v  ; 

•  tiiit  *i<A  >. 

:  i./'j'l  -  v.7  d-dd  //  .(i 

mdf.rxio  j:f ’  y 

r  ■  1 1  J  ’ 

!>  1 

Cuff  'I  !  r  ./fit 

■•‘ii  ‘luo  ft.  Lu.'. 

■,  v/.mi  ;(■: 

:n.-rq  >dT  yd  f.  *:l.i  ik->i 

ff  :;i  h;<i?  •  t > » "? *> 1 

1  fi  ■  J :  '  *  , 

?7  1)  Jl/io  J  hitMtell'i  ;<»• 

5  viv  W  i  ’  i  •*  ' 

\ 

*  >‘r  '!  *fu 

/'(:•  (ii'.'H  to  .1  p 

•  fit  s!  ■ 

/  «i<  >  j  M 

t  <;  * f  ,  7  ; 

kv  v  :.HM  <n. 

rf  jf-uoitnn  “  ’•  i 

1  ,  )  <  J  f] 

I 

’  j  ■  Vii|  n!  !i. 

iif  /nil  •,.•  -- 

Ml  flTO 

:  :  t  j  /o'  ;  1  till 

1 1  ,no  .  ■  :  ’.;m 

.:■>  .if; 

-  ”  1 0 ) !  n\ 

.in 

.  j  5  .  .)  i  (  ( i  •  ‘I  •• 

i  1  •  1  i  i  ; 

ol  'M 

n  ynh  .  /iifto  .-.itvJ  ii’  k 

f  in  f  ol  oiuil 

» { i  J)  /  ( 

’  • 

....  fj  ;; 

f)  .noiv  find1:  ■> ! !  1  'i 

si  .Ji  *• 

;  \  ■  ( j 

r 

'v  ■ 

toil  k',.1 .ill  t)Oy  1  ‘lit  Vf'i  : 

fl  #7  llOb.1  •}  »;»*  »  ->.i 

y 

•  ;!<..[  ,s  j  to  >  ii  t\  I i  (  >• 

;i  -i-.' 1 1. vd  ,  . 

•M  (  U  $11 

t  ,o  11  -'Ij;  »  t  \  ■ ’/  I  *tvtr  ii 

<-r,  L’.ir-*  ; 

i. 

■  t  •  1  in',  i  i  ,'ii-i  I  .oimfioiu  v  •  ;  ■ '  r tw  to  " 

J  >  .{**»;<•  -fit  -/  /fin  liif  n ri  ''u;/v  <  L  iiiJ  :trwv>xi- 

,  ;ii‘l ;  ■ .  MV.hr-  t- v.  f  etfl  <U  ■  l{  suit  H«  yj 

. /fi.l  ‘  v  I  -find  TO,)' 'll*  !S‘r;' \  ’'il  i  ilii  ,.f  •  1  i i/i'Jil  )u , 


[  ,  i  ■  .  !  TU ! ; •  i  ’/.■>  \  <  ■ :  ’  1  \  . 

*■  '  *  r  1  mm  t  r  r  •  !  r  i  .  v 


, 

f  .. 

t  l 

!  of  RC- 

*■{•'•>  j. 

II 

tlldt  {)‘VjT- 

)qj.>  {»»> 

vdo  fm Jit-.BIwiq  kid  kit 

(5  O'f  f*  V 

7/  .ft 

tVL  '<1  !*. 

Of 

rrnii  ova 

u  0  ft 

,  ??  V.dld  7/00  d 

.  ,3 

Oii  i 

•  iftit  Tj 

if  10  71U 

J  It)  fl 

/III!  ITfSO  ->’ 

a  77 

■  /if  do:  ill  Hi  ,VTB>>-j‘)  '1  h't 

|  */  1 

;t  t ,(  •’ . 

jfj  t  r i 

d  nt 

tiwtt 

•  J  i-.f  d  '  •  i  i->  u  do.i;  If.  •. 

r~ 

m'M 

••(  3  n  0 

r  Ltd  /  h 

.•!  n  Oii f t)  '£' 

itinriP, 

til  l  f  eili  h’loi  .  1 

tad  ■ 

l_;Ui  — 

•  •tuv-.. 

•l  fftioT 

HI  1  njif 

|‘>  ft 

. -  i  d': 

•>  .#5,  ■i‘i/1  ;l<r'o‘i  o  ;i  0" 

9  /  fjtl  N 

♦  7  1 1 

mu-sl  f.; 

f 

ov  ad  *>7/  1 

d  .u;. 

• 

f  «i  f • '  iff  / '■■  1  :  l/T'.Of  UO  •  •*.*  1. 

9  •  | 

foil '  1* 

q-.Mttf.O 

j; 

j,. 

7  hiVd.lt:.  1 

ii  i ?  >  *  i 

■id ;  v  lov  olt  r.i  hid f  ,!i  :• 

ii  - 

■  ,-s 

.  »(;•>  aieh 

v 

v  r/'  > 

v  i\y,  I. 

M  i »  ^  1  ft 

f(  ■>  ii!  ;>  /jj.i  iduifu  ill  .jtirn 

1  . !  .  'V 

•  J 

;  U\‘\ 

ill  70't  n 

[ItfR  TUO 

.'rni 

fjftl.  .Hi;. 

i'll 

■  r.f  u  t rdf  ■  II  fro  d 

jlT^>  .  f 

. :  j  I  !  ■_ 

If  i(n  it 

•  •  y.  1  ,  f|  f 

Ji'dl!!; 

1  ;/  ■u  ;  d  tiniw  Uui  ;  1  r- 

.<  fs 

Xf,  ■// 

,ii  f  1  •  >  ‘ 

'kit'.'  id 

si 

«»  m; 

,  tViiii'kj  r  ’ 

f  I.;-.!  /• 

•  i  •>  f  hlnov  tail 

>  '  •• 

'.’it  1  .'to 

efdi-i 

■k  ‘‘f 

hid'd 

■  .  j  ,  ; 

f <1 gldmo-w-f  'j  J-./i  0 

.  f  *  f 

<  > 

.1  -  *  % 

f.  *■  ■ 

'  r  f :  \ 

f 

'Hlitf/te 

RU*  >7  Of 

Vi  ; 

■  !  .OOO’iff 

•  . 

i  *  p. .  i  ' > >  1  a  it 

4  .  >. ; . 

■  i  l  i  1 1  ’  •  ‘ ^ 

•’  - 1 >  i 

»  f  k  . 

rd  1  j»‘)i  t  . 

■’Vi.  ... .  'i.  7  h>  ■'  id  vt  ■ 

*i*>  i*  : 

:  itfUSOO  ’ 

mi  tone 

e'Toh 

,.d  ii 

;  ‘  1 1 ij'j  i. 

j  .od'k  .eilif  »Ji[  .H  r 

.Rll  ,'fov  i(,  it  I(ori>  ii<  Shlli'J 

*1 

ft  01  i»)  1 

>  C»  { «  (  . 

;il  fi  to 

r.:tr»  f.  'd 

Oii'ii  jj 

, 

/■>t(  >n: 

i  ;I  Hid  d  t  -  cq  IJo'/  tl  ,7 1  j. 

♦  ■  ■  :  , -  «“•  f 

#-1^1 

■  • 

■f  (h'ifof 

-pu.iy  k 

d  *  1 . 

in  w/'ic 

H  *>«’  l1 

.••dnrn  >•>♦,[  rod  b«oi  oih 

*>o 

1 l> • 

<1  fl>  if 

ii  u 

r 

i'Mltfi 

i  H 14  5 

.  :1m  liimi.  *dt  t J 1  0 1 

.fl  /770 

;f  J  '.  J 

f  ? •i.fl '(  » 

toy  IT 

*«*»■!  t  itP 

TlD/It 

,  ■>.:  ft aej  Tutfof1  11  /  t' 

v 

■  -/ur.iy 

if  //  • 

lot  7’illiRi, 

t  t  -| 

no  iionf.  7 tin  ■■  mi  o>n, 

;;>> 

an.tv. 

Jto'UL i 

.  itiSftq  *j 

(  n: 

1.  (it 

V  r\'  i 

4  *44- 

d'.i  .nil  Ih.  fmH  7! ihio!-  0. 

v*t  ■  .'o;  ?  h>  n.dHniqxo  0 

nil 

>  i  ••  X  ■  •  . 

*.  i  orli 

’  &  /  *r 

«  iffnr 

T>lf  ff 

>  on; if  0." 

mv1-  ;  -• 

r»  ..if  vl  /  It  l.iuKI,  nil  >'5 
C  -it ]  -.1  Mill  JiUpit  <1  l  .  .Jy 

SPEECH 


OF 

SENATOR  DOUGLAS,  OF  ILLINOIS,  . 

OX  THE 

KANSAS-LECOMPTON  CONSTITUTION, 

AND  THE  REPORT  OF  THE 

COMMITTEE  OF  CONFERENCE. 


DELIVEEED  IN  THE  SENATE  OP  THE  UNITED  STATES,  APP.IL  W,  1858. 


The  Senate  having  resumed  the  consideration  of  the  report  of  the  committee 
of  conference  on  the  disagreeing  votes  of  the  two  Houses  on  the  bill  (S.  No.  161) 
for  the  admission  of  the  State  of  Kansas  into  the  Union — Mi*.  DOUGLAS  said: 


Mr.  President:  I  have  carefully  examined  the  bill  reported  by  the  committee 
of  conference  as  a  substitute  for  the  House  amendment  to  the  Senate  bill  for 
the  admission  of  Kansas,  with  an  anxious  desire  to  find  in  it  such  provisions  as 
would  enable  me  to  give  it  my  support.  I  had  hoped  that,  after  the  disagree¬ 
ment  of  the  two  Houses  upon  this  question,  some  plan,  some  form  of  bill,  could 
have  been  agreed  upon,  which  would  harmonize  and  quiet  the  country,  and  re¬ 
unite  those  who  agree  in  principle  and  in  political  action  on  this  great  question, 
so  as  to  take  it  out  of  Congress.  I  am  not  able,  in  the  bill  which  is  now  under 
consideration,  to  find  that  the  principle  for  which  I  have  contended  is  fairly 
carried  out.  The  position,  and  the  sole  position,  upon  which  I  have  stood  in 
this  whole  controversy,  has  been  that  the  people  of  Kansas,  and  of  each  other 
Territory,  in  forming  a  constitution  for  admission  into  the  Union  as  a  State, 
should  be  left  perfectly  free  to  form  and  mould  their  domestic  institutions  and 
organic  act  in  their  own  way,  without  coercion  on  the  one  side,  or  any  improper 
or  undue  influence  on  the  other. 

The  question  now  arises,  is  there  such  a  submission  of  the  Leeompton  con¬ 
stitution  as  brings  it  fairly  within  that  principle?  In  terms,  the  constitution 
is  not  submitted  at  all ;  but  yet  we  are  told  that  it  amounts  to  a  submission, 
because  there  is  a  land  grant  attached  to  it,  and  they  are  permitted  to  vote  for 
the  land  grant,  or  against  it ;  and,  if  they  accept  the  land  grant,  then  they  are 
required  to  take  the  constitution  with  it;  and,  if  they  reject  the  lan<i  grant,  it 
shall  be  held  and  deemed  a  decision  against  coming  into  the  Union  under  the 
Leeompton  constitution.  Hence  it  will  be  argued  in  one  portion  of  the  Union 
that  this  is  a  submission  of  the  constitution,  and  in  another  portion  that  it  is 
not  We  are  to  be  told  that  submission  is  popular  sovereignty  in  one  section, 
and  submission  in  another  section  i3  not  popular  sovereignty. 

Sir,  I  had  hoped  that  when  we  came  finally  to  adjust  this  question,  we  should 
have  been  able  to  employ  language  so  clear,  so  unequivocal,  that  there  would 
have  been  no  room  for  doubt  as  to  what  was  meant,  and  what  the  line  of  policy 
was  to  be  in  the  future.  Are  these  people  left  free  to  take  or  reject  the  Lo- 
compton  constitution  ?  If  they  accept  the  land  grant,  they  are  compelled  to 
take  it  If  they  reject  the  land  grant,  they  are  out  of  the  "Union.  Sir,  I  have 


2 


no  special  objection  to  the  land  grant  as  it  is.  I  think  it  is  a  fair  One,  and  if 
they  had  put  this  further  addition,  that  if  they  refused  to  come  in  under  the 
Lecompton  constitution  with  the  l.and  grant,  they  might  proceed  to  form  a  new 
constitution,  and  that  they  should  then  have  the  same  amount  of  lands,  there 
would  have  been  no  bounty  held  out  for  coming  in  under  the  Lecompton  con¬ 
stitution  ;  but  when  the  law  gives  them  the  six  million  acres  in  the  event  they 
take  this  constitution,  and  does  not  indicate  what  they  are  to  have  in  the  event 
they  reject  it,  and  wait  until  they  can  form  another,  I  submit  the  question 
whether  there  i§  not  an  inducement,  a  bounty  held  out  to  influence  these  people 
to  vote  for  the  Lecompton  constitution  ? 

It  may  be  said  that  when  they  attain  the  ninety-three  thousand  population, 
or  the  population  required  by  the  then  ratio — which  may  be  one  hundred  and 
twenty  thousand — and  form  a  constitution  under  it,  we  shall  give  then  the  same 
amount  of  land  that  is  now  given  by  this  grant.  That  may  be  so,  and  may  not. 
I  believe  it  will  be  so;  and  yet  in. the  House  bill,:  for  which  this  is  a  substitute, 
the  provision  was  that  they  should  have  this  same  amount  of  land,  whether 
they  came  in  under  the  Lecompton  constitution,  or  whether  they  formed  a  new 
constitution.  There  was  no  doubt,  no  uncertainty  left  in  regard  to  what  wrere 
to  be. their  rights  under  the  land  grant,  whether  they  took  the  one  constitution 
or  the  other.  Hence  that  proposition  was^a  fair  submission,  without  any  pen¬ 
alties  on  the  one  side,  or  any  bounty,  or  special  favor,  or  privilege  on  the  other 
to  influence  their  action.  In  this  view  of  the  case,  I  am  not  able  to  arrive  at 
the  conclusion”that  this  is  a  fair  submission,  either  of  the  question  of  the  con¬ 
stitution  itself,  or  of  admission  into  the  Union  under  the  constitution  and  tbe 
proposition  submitted  by  this  bill. 

Again,  sir,  there  is  a  further  contingency.  In  the  event  that  they  reject  this 
constitution,  they  are  to  stay  out  of  the  Union  until  they  shall  attain  the 
requisite  population  for  a  member  of  Congress,  according  to  the  then  ratio  of 
representation  in  the  other  House.  I  have  no  objection  to  making  it  a  general 
rule  that  Territories  shall  be  kept  out  until  they  have  the  requisite  population. 
I  have  proposed  it  over  and  over  again.  I  am  willing  to  agree  to  it  and  make 
it  applicable  to  Kansas  if  you  will  make  it  a  general  rule.  But,  sir,  it  is  one 
thing  to  adopt  that  rule  as  a  general  rule  and  adhere  to  it  in  all  cases,  and  it  is 
a  very  different,  and  a  very  distinct  thing,  to  provide  that  if  they  will  take  this 
constitution,  which  the  people  have  shown  that  they  abhor,  they  may  come 
in  with  forty  thousand  people,  but  if  they  do  not,  they  shall  stay  out  until  they 
get  ninety  thousand;  thus  discriminating  between  the  different  character  of 
institutions  that  may  be  formed.  I  submit  the  question  whether  it  is  not  Con¬ 
gressional  intervention,  when  you  provide  that  a  Territory  may  come  in  with 
one  kind  of  constitution  with  forty  thousand,  and  with  a  different  kind  of  con¬ 
stitution,  not  until  she  gets  ninety  thousand,  or  one  hundred  and  twenty 
thousand  ?  It  is  intervention  with  inducements  to  control  the  result.  It  is 
intervention  with  a  bounty  on  the  one  side  and  a  penalty  on  the  other.  I  ask, 
are  we  prepared  to  construe  the  great  principle  of  popular  sovereignty  in  such 
a  manner  as  will  recognize  the  right  of  Congress  to  intervene  and  control  the 
decision  that  the  people  may  make  on  the  question. 

The  great  principle  for  which  we  have  all  contended,  in  the  language  of  the 
Kansas-Nebraska  act,  is  to  leave  “  the  people  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regu¬ 
late  their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitu¬ 
tion  of  the  United  States.”  If  you  hold  out  large  grants,  and  pecuniary  induce¬ 
ments,  to  influence  the  affirmative  vote,  and  the  terror  of  staying  out  of  the 
Union  to  influence  the  negative  vote,  I  submit  the  question,  whether  that 
people  are  left  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  institutions?  I  insist 
that  where  there  are  inducements  on  one  side,  and  penalties  on  the  other,  there 
is  no  freedom  of  election.  The  election  must  be  free.  The  electors  must  be 
left  unbiased  by  the  action  of  the  government,  if  you  are  going  to  have  fair 
elections,  and  a  fair  decision. 

For  these  reasons  I  do  not  think  that  this  bill  brings  the  question  within  that 
principle  which  I  have  held  dear,  and  in  defense  of  which  I  have  stood  here 
for  the  last  five  months,  battling  against  the  large'  majority  of  my  political 
friends,  and  in  defense  of  which  I  intend  to  stand  as  long  as  I  have  any  associ¬ 
ation  or  connection  with  the  politics  of  the  country.  I  must  repeat,  sir,  that  I 


3 


do  not  think  this  brings  it  within  the  principle  thus  laid  down,  nor  do  the 
Democracy  of  Illinois  think  this  bill  comes  within  that  principle.  We  have 
recently  held  a  State  convention.  Public  meetings  were  held  in  ninety-eight 
of  the  one  hundred  and  odd  counties.  In  ninety-seven  of  these  counties  resolu¬ 
tions  were  passed  indorsing  the  course  of  the  delegation  in  Congress  xipon  this 
question.  In  one  county  the  opposite  policy  was  sustained.  That  was  the 
county  of  Lake,  a  county  where  the  Republicans  have  an  overwhelming  ma¬ 
jority — perhaps  ten  or  twenty  to  one  over  the  Democrats,  and  where  there 
were  just  Democrats  enough  to  hold  the  post  office  and  the  custom-house,  and 
to  fill  the  light-houses.  That  one  county  was  carried  by  the  Lecompton  men, 
twenty-seven  of  them  in  number,  I  think;  the  other  ninety-seven  counties 
were  being  carried  by  the  anti-Lecompton  men,  and  in  nearly  all  of  them  by  a 
unanimous  vote,  That  convention,  representing  the  entire  State,  embodied 
more  of  the1  eminent  and  distinguished  men — men  of  weight,  of  character, 
moral,  political,  and  social,  than  any  convention  ever  assembled  in  the  State. 
That  convention  which  thus  assembled  a  few  days  ago  passed  resolutions,  and 
among  them  was  one  upon  this  point  which  I  will  read.  After  defining  and 
indorsing  the  principle  of  popular  sovereignty,  the  sixth  resolution  declares : 

“  Resolved ,  That  a  fair  application  of  these  principles  requires  that  the  Le- 
comrpton  constitution  should  be  submitted  to  a  direct  vote  of  the  actual  inhabi¬ 
tants  of  Kansas,  so  that  they  may  vote  for  or  against  that  instrument,  before 
Kansas  shall  be  declared  one  of  the  States  of  this  Union ;  and  until  it  shall  be 
ratified  by  the  people  of  Kansas  at  a  fair  election  held  for. that  purpose,  the 
Illinois  Democracy  are  unalterably  opposed  to  the  admission  of  Kansas  under 
that  constitution.” 

I  will  furnish  to  the  reporter  the  whole  series,  and  ask  him  to  incorporate 
them  into  the  report,  as  furnishing  the  platform  upon  which  the  Illinois  Demo¬ 
cracy  stand,  and  by  which  I  intend  to  abide. 

“Colonel  McClernand,  from  the  committee  to  prepare  resolutions  for  the 
consideration  of  the  convention,  made  the  following  report;  which  was  read, 
and,  on  motion,  each  resolution  was  separately  read  and  unanimously  adopted: 

,  _  .  ,  « 

“  1.  Resolved,  That  the  Democratic  party  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  through 

their  delegates  in  general  convention  assembled,  do  reassert  and  declare  the 
principles  avowed  by  them  as  when,  on  former  occasions,  they  have  presented 
their  candidates  for  popular  suffrage. 

“  2.  Resolved,  That  they  are  unalterably  attached  to,  and  will  maintain  in¬ 
violate,  the  principles  declared  by  the  national  convention  at  Cincinnati  in 
June,  1856. 

“3.  Resolved,  That  they  avow,  with  renewed  energy,  their  devotion  to  the 
Federal  Union  of  the  United  States,  their  earnest  desire  to  avert  sectional  strife, 
their  determination  to  maintain  the  sovereignty  of  the  States,  and  to  protect 
every  State,  and  the  people  thereof,  in  all  their  constitutional  rights. 

rt4.  Resolved,  That  the  platform  of  principles  established  by  the  national 
Democratic  convention  at  Cincinnati,  is  the  only  authoritative  exposition  of 
Democratic  doctrine,  and  they  deny  the  right  of  any  power  on  earth,  except  a 
like  body,  to  change  or  interpolate^  that  platform,  or  to  prescribe  new  and 
different  tests ;  that  they  will  neither  do  it  themselves  nor  permit  it  to  be  done 
by  others,  but  will  recognize  all  men  as  Democrats  who  stand  by  and  uphold 
Democratic  principles. 

“  5.  Resolved,  That  in  the  organization  of  States,  the  people  have  a  right  to 
decide  at  the  polls  upon  the  character  of  their  fundamental  law,  and  that  the 
experience  of  the  past  year  has  conclusively  demonstrated  the  wisdom  and  pro¬ 
priety  of  the  principle,  that  the  fundamental  law,  under  which  the  Territory 
seeks  admission  into  the  Union,  should  be  submitted  to  the  people  of  such 
Territory  for  their  ratification  or  rejection  at  a  fair  election  to  be  held  for  that 
purpose ;  and  that,  before  such  Territary  is  admitted  as  a  State,  such  funda¬ 
mental  law  should  receive  a  majority  of  the  legal  votes  cast  at  such  election*;, 
and  they  deny  the  right,  and  condemn  the  attempt,  of  any  convention,  called 
for  the  purpose  of  framing  a  constitution,  to  impose  the  instrument  formed  by 
them  upon  the  people  against  their  known  will. 


4: 


“6.  Resolved ,  That  a  fair  application  of  these  principles  requires  that  the 
Lecompton  constitution  should  be  submitted  to  a  direct  vote  of  the  actual  in¬ 
habitants  of  Kansas,  so  that  they  may  vote  for  or  against  that  instrument;  be¬ 
fore  Kansas  shall  be  declared  one  of  the  States  of  this  Union ;  and  until  it  shall 
be  ratified  by  the  people  of  Kansas  at  a  fair  election  held  for  that  purpose,  the 
Illinois  Democracy  are  unalterably  opposed  to  the  admission  of  Kansas  under 
that  constitution, 

“7.  Resolved,  That  we  heartily  approve  and  sustain  the  manly,  firm,  patri¬ 
otic,  and  Democratic  position  of  S.  A.  Douglas,  Isaac  N.  Morris,  Thomas  L. 
Harris,  Aaron  Shaw,  Robert  Smith,  and  Samuel  S.  Marshall,  the  Democrat!© 
delegation  of  Illinois  in  Congress,  upon  the  question  of  the  admission  of  Kansas 
under  the  Lecompton  constitution ;  and  that,  by  their  firm  and  uncompromising 
devotion  to  Democratic  principles,  and  to  the  cause  of  justice,  right,  truth,  and 
the  people,  they  have  deserved  our  admiration,  increased,  if  possible,  our  confi¬ 
dence  in  their  integrity  and  patriotism,  and  merited  our  warm  approbation,  our 
sincere  and  hearty  thanks,  and  shall  receive  our  earnest  support. 

M  8.  Resolved,  That  in  all  things  wherein  the  national  Administration  sustain 
and  carry  out  the  principles  of  the  Democratic  party  as  expressed  in  the  Cin¬ 
cinnati  platform,  and  affirmed  in  these  resolutions,  it  is  entitled  to,  and  will  re¬ 
ceive,  our  hearty  support.” 

There  the  Democracy  of  Illinois,  assembled  in  convention  under  the  circum¬ 
stances  which  I  have  stated,  have,  by  a  unanimous  voice,  declared  that  this  con¬ 
stitution  must  be  submitted  to  a  direct  vote  of  the  people  on  its  ratification  or 
rejection,  and  that  Kansas  must  never  come  in  under  it  unless,  on  such  a  direct 
vote,  at  a  fair  election,  the  people  shall  decide  in  favor  of  admission  under  it. 
Under  these  circumstances,  it  will  be  seen  that  I  stand  now,  as  I  have  stood  du¬ 
ring  the  whole  session,  with  the  Democracy  of  my  own  State,  firmly,  immova¬ 
bly,  in  favor  of  that  great  principle  of  popular  sovereignty,  which  leaves  the 
people  perfectly  free  either  to  take  the  Lecompton  constitution,  or  to  have  such 
other  one  as  they  may  choose  to  make. 

I  have  had  appeals  made  to  me  from  political  friends,  whom  I  respect  and 
esteem,  imploring  me  to  yield  this  great  principle  on  this  question,  in  consider¬ 
ation  of  so  many  concessions  being  made  on  the  other  side.  Some  of  that  glo¬ 
rious  band  of  Democrats  who  have  been  acting  with  me  on  this  question  during 
the  session,  have  felt  it  their  duty  thus  to  yield,  believing,  as  they  think,  that 
they  have  secured  a  substantial  triumph  in  this  great  contest.  Sir,  I  desire  no 
personal  triumph.  I  have  not  stood  here  for  five  months  in  conflict  with  men 
with  whom  I  have  acted  a  whole  lifetime,  struggling  for  a  personal  triumph. 
Hence,  because  they  have  made  concessions,  that  fact  ought  not  to  change  my 
oourse,  unless  those  concessions  are  of  such  a  nature  as  to  give  me  the  principles 
for  which  I  contend. 

If  the  object  was  to  prove  that  the  Lecompton  men  had  backed  down,  and 
abandoned  their  original  ground,  I  could  parade  the  fact  that,  at  the  opening  of 
this  session,  we  were  told  that  Kansas  must  come  in  under  the  Lecompton  con¬ 
stitution  unconditionally,  or  else  that  four  States  would  secede  from  the  Union. 
It  was  then  to  be  an  unconditional  admission.  After  a  while,  upon  reflection, 
upon  investigation,  the  conclusion  was  arrived  at  that  it  was  wise  to  put  a 
clause  in  the  bill  in  some  way  recognizing  the  right  of  the  people  of  that  State 
to  change  their  constitution  before  1864,  although,  according  to  my  construction 
of  its  terms,  it  prohibited  any  change  until  that  period.  Here  was  a  concession 
made,  a  great  concession,  a  concession  which  I  never  could  have  made,  on  Which¬ 
ever  side  of  the  question  I  may  have  been,  for  the  reason  that  I  do  not  beliewe 
that  Congress  have  any  right  to  alter  or  construe  authoritatively  a  State  consti¬ 
tution. 

It  was  not  satisfactory  to  me  to  have  Congress,  in  pursuance  of  the  recom¬ 
mendation  of  the  President,  intervene  and  recognize,  by  any  implication,  the 
right  of  the  people  to  change  their  State  constitution  in  a  manner  m  ©srenfc 
from  that  prescribed  in  the  instrument  itself.  I  deny  the  right  of  Congress  to 
exercise  any  such  power.  I  deny  the  right  of  Congress  to  intwven  •  ami  au¬ 
thoritatively  construe  the  constitution  of  a  State.  If  the  constitution  was  their 
act  and  deed ;  if  it  embodied  their  will — it  was  sacred,  and  it  ought  not  to  be 
touched  by  Congress  in  any  respect  whatever,  except  to  receive  it  uncondition- 


I 


5 

ally,  or  reject  it  unconditionally.  That  concession  was  made ;  but  still  it  did 
not  reach  the  point  which  I  had  felt  it  my  duty  to  make.  It  did  not  come  to 
my  principle.  I  do  not  claim  that  Senators  are  under  any  more  obligation  to 
come  to  me  than  I  am  to  go  to  them.  I  claim  the  right  to  determine  for  myself, 
according  to  my  own  judgment  and  my  own  conscience,  what  my  duty  is  to  a 
great  fundamental  principle ;  and  if  Senators  cannot  bring  the  bill  within  the 
principle,  I  must  exercise  my  right  and  duty  of  dissenting  from  it.  I  did  not 
think  that  concession  brought  it  within  the  principle,  or  obviated  any  of  my 
objections.  It  only  made  the  bill  more  obnoxious  to  me  by  violating  another 
principle  equally  sacred  in  our  political  system — that  of  the  sovereignty  of  the 
States.  )  , 

Next  came  the  declaration  that  the  free-State  Legislature  was  elected ;  and 
hence,  if  Kansas  was  forced  into  the  Union  with  a  pro-slavery  constitution, 
against  the  will  of  her  people,  it  would  not  last  long,  for  the  reason  that  there 
was  a  free-State  Legislature,  who  would  immediately  take  steps  to  change  it 
and  abolish  slavery.  That  argument  did  not  address  itself  favorably  to  my 
judgment,  for  the  reason  that  it  did  not  affect  the  principle  involved.  "What 
difference  did  it  make,  so  far  as  the  principle  wa3  concerned,  whether  there  was 
a  majority  of  free-State  men  or  a  majority  of  pro-slavery  men  in  that  Legisla¬ 
ture?  What  difference  did  it  make  to  me,  whether  there  was  a  majority  of 
Democrats,  or  a  majority  of  Republicans,  or  a  majority  of  Americans  in  that 
Legislature,  provided  they  were  fairly  and  honestly  elected?  If  the  people  of 
Kansas  desired  a  pro-slavery  Legislature,  they  had  a  right  to  it.  If  they  de¬ 
sired  a  Republican  Legislature,  they  had  a  right  to  it.  If  they  desired  an 
American  Legislature,  they  had  a  right  to  it.  If  they  desired  a  Legislature 
purely  Democratic,  elected  without  reference  to  the  question  of  slavery,  it  was 
their  right  to  select  such  a  one;  and,  sir,  it  was  the  duty  of  Mr.  Calhoun  to  de¬ 
clare  those  elected  wTho  had  received  a  majority  of  the  legal  votes,  fairly  and 
honestly  returned.  The  declaration  of  that  result  could  not  change  the  princi- 

f>le  involved  in  this  discussion,  for  the  great  principle  was,  shall  that  people  be 
eft  perfectly  and  entirely  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  own  institutions  in 
their  own  way? 

These  various  concessions  could  not  control  votes  enough  to  carry  the  bill. 
What  next?  Then  comes  a  disagreement  between  the  two  Houses  of  Congress. 
The  Senate  insisting  upon  the  bill  which  it  had  passed  for  the  admission  of  Le- 
©ompton  unconditionally,  except  wh at  is  called  the  Pugh-Green  amendment; 
and  the  House  insisting  on  the  bill  which  it  had  passed  as  a  substitute,  known 
as  the  Crittenden-Montgomery  bill.  This  committee  of  conference  provide  for 
a  question  of  submission  to  the  people,  but  what  do  they  submit?  The  chair¬ 
man  of  that  committee  of  conference,  the  Senator  from  Missouri,  [Mr.  Green,] 
has  informed  you  that  the  constitution  is  not  submitted;  the  Senator  from  Vir¬ 
ginia,  [Mr.  Hunter,]  who  was  his  colleague  on  the  committee,  has  informed  you 
that  the  constitution  is  not  submitted ;  and  I  believe  both  of  them  have  added 
that  they  would  not  vote  for  the  bill  if  the  constitution  was  submitted.  I  un¬ 
derstand  that  similar  declarations  have  been  made  in  the  other  House  of  Con¬ 
gress  by  the  members  of  the  committee  of  conference  there,  showing  that  this 
was  their  understanding  and  their  construction  of  the  bill. 

Then,  if  the  constitution ‘is  not  submitted;  if  the  people  are  not  allowed  to 
vote  for  it  or  against  it,  freely,  without  a  bounty  on  the  one  side  or  a  penalty 
on  the  other,  how  can  it  be  said  that  it  comes  within  that  great  principle  of 
popular  sovereignty  which,  I  insist,  ought  to  be  carried  out  in  all  the  Territories? 
It  is  no  answer  to  this  objection  to  tell  me  that  because  men  have  conceded  so 
much,  I  ought  to  concede.  No  matter  how  many  and  how  great  their  conces¬ 
sions  are,  if  they  have  not  conceded  the  principle  for  which  1  contend,  I  cannot 
take  what  they  propose.  It  is  not  for  me  to  say  whether  these  concessions  are 
right  or  wrong,  whether  they  are  wise  or  unwise.  It  is  enough  for  me  that  the 
principle  for  which  I  insist  has  not  been  eld||?ly  and  distinctly  recognized  in 
this  bill.  I  dislike  the  indirection  by  which  the  submission  is  proposed  to  be 
made — made  to  depend  on  a  land  grant.  In  order  to  enable  the  people  of  Kan¬ 
sas  to  reject  the  Lecompton  constitution,  you  compel  them  to  vote  against  a  land 
grant,  which  every  man,  woman,  and  child  in  the  Territory  would  desire  to 
have.  You  will  not  allow  them  to  take  the  land  graj^t  unless  they  take  the 


t 


4 


6 

constitution  with  it,  and  you  will  not  allow  them  to  proceed  immediately  and 
make  a  new  constitution,  with  the  same  population,  and  have  the  same  land 
grant,  if  they  reject  this.  If  you  did  that,  then  the  principle  would  be  fairly 
carried  out;  but  unless  you  do  allow  that  to  be  done,  I  insist  that  the  principle 
is  violated. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  I  can  say  to  you  very  frankly,  that  if  there  were  two 
amendments  made  to  this  bill,  although  it  would  still  be  somewhat  objectionable 
in  its  equivocal  features,  I  could  and  would  take  great  pleasure  in  giving  it  my 
support.  One  would  be  to  strike  out  the  land  grant  altogether,  and  the  other 
to  strike  out  the  limitation  as  to  population.  Then  the  simple  question  pre¬ 
sented  to  the  people  would  be,  will  you  come  in  under  the  Lecompton  constitu¬ 
tion  or  not?  and  if  you  do  not,  you  may  proceed  immediately,  with  the  same 
population,  to  make  a  new  constitution.  In  that  there  would  be  perfect  fairness; 
there  would  be  no  Congressional  intervention  with  its  inducements  to  control 
the  results.  Or,  if  you  wanted  to  leave  the  land  grant  in,  why  not  make  it  ap¬ 
plicable  to  the  new  constitution  as  well  as  the  old  one,  as  the  Crittenden  amend¬ 
ment  did?  Then  they  would  get  the  same  amount  of  land  under  the  one  as  the 
other.  In  other  words,  if  you  wish  to  make  this  proposition  fair,  you  must  give 
Kansas  the  same  land,  under  any  new  constitution  she  may  form,  as  you  do 
under  this  one,  and  you  must  allow  her  to  come  in  with  the  same  population 
under  the  one  as  under  the  other  constitution.  Then  there  would  be  fairness, 
then  there  would  be  equality. 

1  appeal  to  my  friend  from  Virginia  to  know  whether  he,  as  a  Southern  man, 
desires  to  see  the  principle  of  Congressional  intervention  to  control  and  influence 
the  voting  of  the  people  carried  out  hereafter  in  the  admission  of  new  States? 
The  time  may  come  when  the  case  will  be  reversed.  The  time  may  come  when 
there  will  be  an  anti-slavery  majority  in  both  Houses  of  Congress.  When  that 
time  comes,  it  may  so  happen  that  a  bill  may  be  brought  forward  with  a  land 
grant  of  ten  million  acres  for  a  free  State,  and  five  million  for  a  slave  State;  or 
allowing  a  free  State  to  come  in  with  a  population  of  forty  thousand,  and  pro¬ 
viding  that  a  slave  State  shall  not  come  in  without  ninety  thousand.  Would 
our  Southern  friends  regard  that  as  being  a  fair  interpretation  of  the  principle 
of  popular  sovereignty?  Would  they  not  say  that  was  the  most  dangerous  and 
unconstitutional  system  of  intervention  that  was  ever  devised,  when  the  Fed¬ 
eral  Government  steps  into  the  Territories,  and  by  its  bounties  on  one  side,  and 
its  penalties  on  the  other,  attempts  to  influence  and  control  the  action  of  the 
people  ? 

I  do  not  regard  this  as  a  matter  of  much  consequence  to  Kansas ;  I  do  not 
believe  there  is  enough  in  this  bounty,  or  enough  in  this  penalty,  to  exercise 
any  material  influence  upon  the  people  of  Kansas  in  this  election;  but  it  in¬ 
volves  the  great  fundamental  principle,  it  involves  the  principle  of  freedom  of 
election,  and  it  involves  the  great  principle  of  self-government,  upon  which  our 
institutions  rest.  With  all  the  anxiety  that  I  havd  had  to  be  able  to  arrive  at 
a  conclusion  in  harmony  with  the  overwhelming  majority  of  my  political  friends 
in  Congress,  I  could  not  bring  my  judgment  or  conscience  to  the  conclusion  that 
this  was  a  fair,  impartial,  and  equal  application  of  the  principle. 

There  is  another  objection  to  this  proposition,  one  that  looks  badly  upon  its 
face.  I  take  it  for  granted  that  it  was  intended  to  be  fair  and  just ;  but  it  gives 
cause  for  apprehension,  and  will  generate  suspicion  among  the  people  that  the 
election  under  it  will  not  be,  and  cannot  be,  fair.  I  allude  to  the  provision  as 
to  the  board  of  commissioners.  By  the  bill  framed  by  the  eminent  Senator 
from  Kentucky,  and  passed  by  the  House  of  Representatives,  there  was  to  be  a 
board  of  four  commissioners  to  superintend  the  election  on  the  constitution; 
two  representing  the  people  of  the  Territory,  being  the  presiding  officers  of  the 
two  branches  of  the  Legislature;  the  other  two  representing  the  Federal  Gov¬ 
ernment,  being  the  Governor  and  Secretary,  appointed  by  the  President  and 
the  Senate.  In  that  way,  two  commissioners  would  necessarily  be  of  one  class 
of  politics,  and  the  other  two  of  another  class  of  politics.  Under  that  state  of 
the  ease,  it  is  not  probable  that  unfairness  would  have  been  perpetrated  in  the 
election.  Under  that  board,  as  prescribed  by  the  Senator  from  Kentucky,  you 
would  have  the  assurance,  from  the  very  law  itself,  that  one-half  of  the  judges 


7 


of  election  would  belong  to  one  party,  and  one  half  to  the  other;  that  one  half 
of  the  clerks  would  belong  to  one,  and  one  half  to  the  other. 

But  how  is  it  when  you  add  a  fifth  member  to  the  board,  and  provide  that 
the  board  shall  consist  of  five,  the  two  presiding  officer^  of  the  Legislature,  and 
then  the  Governor,  Secretary,  and  the  district  attorney,  making  three  United 
States  officers,  and  declare  that  three  shall  constitute  the  board  ?  Is  it  not 
clear  that  if  these  three  gentlemen  choose,  they  can  have  all  the  judges  of  elec¬ 
tion  and  all  the  clerks  of  election  and  all  the  returning  officers  of  .one  class  of 
political  faith,  the  same  as  Mr.  Calhoun  did  at  the  elections*  which  took  place 
on  the  21st  of  December  and  the  first  Monday  of  January?  Does  not  the 
change  in  this  respect  give  ground  for  apprehension  that  you  may  have  the 
Oxford,  the  Shawnee,  and  the  Delaware  Crossing  and  Kiekajoo  frauds  reenact¬ 
ed  at  this  election?  I  should  have  been  better  satisfied  if  it  had  been  left  as 
the  House  bill  left  it,  with  the  four  commissioners,  two  from  each  political 
party  in  Kansas,  two  representing  the  Federal  Government,  two  representing 
the  people  of  the  Territory,  requiring  three  to  be  a  quorum,  thus  rendering  it 
impossible  for  partisan  politics  to  control  the  action  of  the  board.  The  very 
fact  that  it  was  deemed  necessary  or  wise  to  change  this  feature,  is  to  me  a 
serious  objection  to  this  proposition. 

Then,  sir,  what  is  my  duty  upon  this  question,  under  this  state  of  the  case? 
I  have  but  one  line  of  duty,  and  that  is  to  vote  against  the  bill ;  because,  in  my 
opinion,  there  is  not  a  fair  submission  to  the  people  under  such  circumstances 
as  to  insure  an  unbiased  election  and  fair  returns.  I  have  indicated  two  amend¬ 
ments,  which,  if  they  had  been  made,  would  have  enabled  me  to  support  this 
bill,  notwithstanding  other  defects  in  it.  I  will  indicate  another.  I  am  willing 
to  subscribe  to  the  principle  that  a  Territory  shall  contain  the  requisite  popu¬ 
lation  for  a  member  of  Congress  before  admission,  provided  it  is  made  a  general 
law.  The  Senator  from  Ohio  [Mr.  Pugh]  yesterday  cited  me  as  authority  for 
that  provision  of  this  bill.  He  referred  to  my  report,  as  chairman  of  the  Com¬ 
mittee  on  Territories,  and  the  bill  accompanying  it,  in  1856,  in  which  I  then 
provided  that  Kansas  might  proceed  to  form  a  constitution  when  she  had  the 
requisite  population,  to  wit:  ninety-three  thousand  four  hundred  and  twenty, 
under  the  present  ratio.  That  was  my  judgment  then  of  the  true  rule  upon  the 
subject.  He  quotes  also  a  proposition  that  I  have  brought  in  at  this  very 
session  as  a  substitute  for  the  Arizona  bill,  providing  a  general  law  that  no 
Territory  shall  ever  form  a  constitution  and  State  government  unlil  it  has  the 
requisite  population  for  a  member  of  Congress.  I  am  for  that  proposition  now ; 
and  if  Senators  will  consent  to  any  arrangement  by  which  you  can  strike  out 
the  yhole  0f  this  bill,  and,  in  lieu  of  it,  insert  a  provision  that  neither  Kansas, 
nor  any  other  Territory  of  the  United  States,  shall  proceed  to  form  a  constitu¬ 
tion  and  State  government  for  admission  into  the  Union  until  it  has  the  requi¬ 
site  population  for  a  member  of  Congress,  according  to  the  existing  Federal 
ratio,  I  will  give  it  my  support. 

But,  sir,  if  I  require  it  in  Kansas,  I  wish  to  require  it  in  other  Territories ; 
and  if  I  am  to  apply  that  limitation  to  the  new  constitution  that  is  to  be  made, 
I  wish  to  apply  it  to  the  one  that  is  in  existence.  I  am  not  willing  to  prescribe 
one  ratio  to  one  kind  of  constitution,  and  another  ratio  to  another  kind.  Make 
it  uniform,  and  it  can  have  my  support.  I  have  on  all  proper  occasions  indi¬ 
cated  that  as  the  proper  rule — in  1856,  as  the  Senator  from  Ohio  proved;  at 
this  session  again,  as  he  proved  yesterday  by  reading  the  bill  offered  by  me ; 
and  I  repeat  now  that,  if  you  will  strike  out  all  of  this  bill  but  the  clause  that 
Kansas  snail  not  come  in  until  she  has  the  requisite  population  for  a  member  of 
Congress,  and  then  say  that  this  section  is  incorporated  into  and  made  part  of 
the  organic  law  of  each  of  the  Territories  of  the  United  States,  and  that  none 
shall  come  for  admission  until  they  have  that  population,  I  will  give  it  my 
support. 

In  other  words,  Mr.  President,  I  desire  to  carry  out  the  principle  of  leaving 
the  people  to  decide  for  themselves  in  perfect  fairness.  I  will  support  no  rule 
applicable  to  the  North  that  does  not  apply  to  the  South.  I  will  make  no  rule 
applicable  to  the  South  that  I  am  not  willing  to  apply  to  the  North.  I  will 
not  intervene  either  for  slave  constitutions  or  against  slave  constitutions  by  an 
act  of  Congress,  holding  out  bounties  on  the  one  fide  or  penalties  on  the  other. 


8 


,  \  , 

Stand  on  the  great  principle  of  equality ;  leave  each  State  on  an  exaet  footing 
with  every  other  State;  never  inquire  whether  her  institutions  are  of  this 
character  or  that  character;  never  inquire  whether  the  State  is  in  the  North  or 
in  the  South,  and  I  will  stand  with  you  and  apply  the  rule  with  exact  justiee 
and  impartiality  in  every  instance. 

Mr.  President,  I  say  now,  as  I  am  about  to  take  leave  of  this  subject,  that  I 
never  can  consent  to  violate  that  great  principle  of  State  equality,  of  State 
sovereignty,  of  popular  sovereignty,  by  any  discrimination,  either  in  the  one 
direction  or  in  the  other.  My  position  is  taken.  I  know  not  what  its  conse¬ 
quences  will  be  personally  to  me.  I  will  not  inquire  what  those  consequences 
may  be.  If  I  cannot  remain  in  public  life,  holding  firmly,  immovably,  to  the 
great  principle  of  self-government  and  State  equality,  I  shall  go  into  private 
kfe,  where  I  can  preserve  the  respect  of  my  own  conscience  under  the  convic¬ 
tion  that  I  have  done  my  duty  and  followed  the  principle  wherever  its  logical 
consequences  carried  me. 

Printed  by  Lemuel  Towers. 


v 


* 


SPEECH 

OF 

SENATOR  DOUGLAS,  OF  ILLINOIS, 

OX  THE 

KANSAS-LECOMPTON  CONSTITUTION, 

AND  THE  REPORT  OF  THE 

COMMITTEE  OF  CONFERENCE. 


DELIVERED  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  APRIL  29,  1858. 


•  r  , 

The  Senate  having  resumed  the  consideration  of  the  report  of  the  committee 
of  conference  on  the  disagreeing  votes  of  the  two  Houses  on  the  bill  (S.  No.  161) 
for  the  admission  of  the  State  of  Kansas  into  the  Union— Mr.  DOUGLAS  said: 

Mr.  President:  I  have  carefully  examined  the  bill  reported  by  the  committee 
of  conference  as  a  substitute  for  the  House  amendment  to  the  Senate  bill  for 
the  admission  of  Kansas,  with  an  anxious  desire  to  find  in  it  such  provisions  as 
would  enable  me  to  give  it  my  support.  I  had  hoped  that,  after  the  disagree¬ 
ment  of  the  two  Houses  upon  this  question,  some  plan,  some  form  of  bill,  could 
have  been  agreed  upon,  which  would  harmonize  and  quiet  the  country,  and  re¬ 
unite  those  who  agree  in  principle  and  in  political  action  on  this  great  question, 
so  as  to  take  it  out  of  Congress.  I  am  not  able,  in  the  bill  which  is  now  under 
consideration,  to  find  that  the  principle  for  which  I  have  contended  is  fairly 
carried  out.  The  position,  and  the  sole  position,  upon  which  I  have  stood  in 
this  whole  controversy,  has  been  that  the  people  of  Kansas,  and  of  each  other 
Territory,  in  forming  a  constitution  for  admission  into  the  Union  as  a  State, 
should  be  left  perfectly  free  to  form  and  mould  their  domestic  institutions  and 
organic  act  in  their  own  way,  without  coercion  on  the  one  side,  or  any  improper 
or  undue  influence  on  the  other. 

The  question  now  arises,  is  there  such  a  submission  of  the  Lecompton  con¬ 
stitution  as  brings  it  fairly  within  that  principle!  In  terms,  the  constitution 
is  not  submitted  at  all;  but  yet  we  are  told  that  it  amounts  to  a  submission, 
because  there  is  a  land  grant  attached  to  it,  and  they  are  permitted  to  vote  for 
the  land  grant,  or  against  it;  and,  if  they  accept  the  land  grant,  then  they  are 
required  to  take  the  constitution  with  it;  and,  if  they  reject  the  land  grant,  it 
shall  be  held  and  deemed  a  decision  against  coming  into  the  Union  under  the 
Lecompton  constitution.  Hence  it  will  be  argued  m  one  portion  of  the  Union 
that  this  is  a  submission  of  the  constitution,  and  in  another  portion  that  it  is 
nQt.  We  are  to  be  told  that  submission  is  popular  sovereignty  in  one  section, 
and  submission  in  another  section  is  not  popular  sovereignty. 

Sir,  I  had  hoped  that  when  we  came  finally  to  adjust  this  question,  we  should 
have  been  able  to  employ  language  so  clear,  so  unequivocal,  that  there  would 
have  been  no  room  for  doubt  as  to  what  was  meant,  and  what  the  line  of  policy 
wa3  to  be  in  the  future.  Are  these  people  left  free  to  take  or  reject  the  Le- 
oompto.n  constitution?  If  they  accept  the  land  grant,  they  are  compelled  to 
take  it.  If  they  reject  the  land  grant,  they  are  out  of  the  Union.  Sir,  I  have 


2- 


no  special  objection  to  the  land  grant  as  it  is.  I  think  it  is  a  fair  one,  and  if 
they  had  put  this  further  addition,  that  if  they  refused  to  come  in  under  the 
Lecompton  constitution  with  the  land  grant,  they  might  pi’oceed  to  form  a  new 
constitution,  and  that  they  should  then  have  the  same  amount  of  lands,  there 
would  have  been  no  bounty  held  out  for  coming  in  under  the  Lecompton  con¬ 
stitution  ;  but  when  the  law  gives  them  the  six  million  acres  in  the  event  they 
take  this  constitution,  and  does  not  indicate  what  they  are  to  have  in  the  event 
they  reject  it,  and  wait  until  they  can  form,  another,  I  submit  the  question 
whether  there  is  not  an  inducement,  a  bounty  held  out  to  influence  these  people 
to  vote  for  the  Lecompton  constitution  ? 

It  may  be  said  that  when  they  attain  the  ninety-three  thousand  population, 
or  the  population  required  by  the  then  ratio — which  may  be  one  hundred  and 
twenty  thousand — and  form  a  constitution  under  it,  we  shall  give  then  the  same 
amount  of  land  that  is  now  given  by  this  grant.  That  may  be  so,  and  may  not. 
I  believe  it  will  be  so;  and  yet  in  the  House  bill,  for  which  this  is  a  substitute, 
the  provision  was  that  they  should  have  this  same  amount  of  land,  whether 
they  came  in  under  the  Lecompton  constitution,  or  whether  they  formed  a  new 
•constitution.  There  was  no  doubt,  no  uncertainty  left  in  regard  to  what  were 
to  be  their  rights  under  the  land  grant,  whether  they  took  the  one  constitution 
or  the  other.  Hence  that  proposition  was  a  fair  submission,  without  any  pen¬ 
alties  on  the  one  side,  or  any  bounty,  or  special  favor,  or  privilege  on  the  other 
to  influence  their  action.  In  this  view  of  the  case,  I  am  not  able  to  arrive  at 
the  conelusiorrthat  this  is  a  fair  submission,  either  of  the  question  of  the  con¬ 
stitution  itself,  or  of  admission  into  the  Union  under  the  constitution  and  the 
proposition  submitted  by  this  bill. 

Again,  sir,  there  is  a  further  contingency.  In  the  event  that  they  reject  this 
constitution,  they  are  to  stay  out  of  the  Union  until  they  shall  attain  the 
requisite  population  for  a  member  of  Congress,  according  to  the  then  ratio  of 
representation  in  the  other  House.  I  have  no  objection  to  making  it  a  general 
rule  that  Territories  shall  be  kept  out  until  they  have  the  requisite  population. 
I  have  proposed  it  over  and  over  again.  I  am  willing  to  agree  to  it  and  make 
It  applicable  to  Kansas  if  you  will  make  it  a  general  rule.  But,  sir,  it  is  one 
thing  to  adopt  that  rule  as  a  general  rule  and  adhere  to  it  in  all  cases,  and  it  is 
a  very  different,  and  a  very  distinct  thing,  to  provide  tl\at  if  they  will  take  this 
constitution,  which  the  people  have  shown  that  they  abhor,  they  may  come 
In  with  forty  thousand  people,  but  if  they  do  not,  they  shall  stay  out  until  they 
get  ninety  thousand;  thus  discriminating  between  the  different  character  of 
institutions  that  may  be  formed.  I  submit  the  question  whether  it  is  not  Con¬ 
gressional  intervention,  when  you  provide  that  a  Territor}7  may  come  in  with 
one  kind  of  constitution  with  forty  thousand,  and  with  a  different  kind  of  con¬ 
stitution,  not  until  she  gets  ninety  thousand,  or  one  hundred  and  twenty 
thousand?  It  is  intervention  with  inducements  to  control  the  result.  It  is 
intervention  with  a  bounty  on  the  one  side  and  a  penalty  on  the  other.  I  ask, 
are  we  prepared  to  construe  the  great  principle  of  popular  sovereignty  in  such 
a  maimer  as  will  recognize  the  right  of  Congress  to  intervene  and  control  the 
decision  that  the  people  may  make  on  the  question. 

The  great  principle  for  which  we  have  all  contended,  in  the  language  of  the 
Kansas- Nebraska  act,  is  to  leave  “the  people  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regu¬ 
late  their  domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,  subject  only  to  the  Constitu¬ 
tion  of  the  United  States.”  If  you  hold  out  large,  grants,  and  pecuniary  induce¬ 
ments,  to  influence  the  affirmative  vote,  and  the  terror  of  staying  out  of  the 
Union  to  influence  the  negative  vote,  I  submit  the  question,  whether  that 
people  are  left  perfectly  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  institutions?  I  insist 
that  where  there  are  inducements  on  one  side,  and  penalties  on  the  other,  there 
is  no  freedom  of  election.  The  election  must  be  free.  The  electors  must  be 
left  unbiased  by  the  action  of  the  government,  if  you  are  going  to  have  fair 
elections,  and  a  fair  decision. 

For  these  reasons  I  do  not,  think  that  this  bill  brings  the  question  within  that 
principle  which  I  have  held  dear,  and  in  defense  of  which  I  have  stood  here 
for  the  last  five  months,  battling  against  the 'large  majority  of  my  political 
friends,  and  in  defense  of  which  1  intend  to  stand  as  long  as  I  have  any  associ¬ 
ation  or  connection  with  the  polities  of  the  country.  I  must  repeat,  sir,  that  I 


3 


clo  not  think  this  brings  it  within  the  principle  thus  laid  down,  nor  do  the 
Democracy  of  Illinois  think  this  bill  comes  within  that  principle.  We  have' 
recently  held  a  State-  convention.  Public  meetings  were  held  in  ninety-eight 
of  the  one  hundred  and  odd  counties.  In  ninety -seven  of  these  counties  resolu¬ 
tions  were  passed  indorsing  the  course  of  the  delegation  in  Congress  upon  this 
question.  In  one  county  the  opposite  policy  was  sustained.  That  was  the 
county  of  Lake,  a  county  where  the  Republicans  have  an  overwhelming  ma¬ 
jority — perhaps  ten  or  twenty  to  one  over  the  Democrats,  and  where  there 
were  just  Democrats  enough  to  hold  the  post  office  and  the  custom-house,  and 
to  fill  the  light-houses.  That  one  county  was  carried  by  the  Lecompton  men, 
twenty-seven  of  them  in  number,  I  think;  the  other  ninety- seven  counties 
were  being  carried  by  the  anti-Lecompton  men,  and  in  nearly  all  of  them  by  a 
unanimous  vote,  That  convention,  representing  the  entire  State,  embodied 
more  of  the  eminent  and  distinguished  men — men  of  weight,  of  character, 
moral,  political,  and  social,  than  any  convention  ever  assembled  in  the  State. 
That  convention  which  thus  assembled  a  few  days  ago  passed  resolutions,  and 
among  them  was  one  upon  this  point  which  I  will  read.  After  defining  and 
indorsing  the  principle  of  popular  sov  ereignty,  the  sixth  resolution  declares : 

“  Resolved ,  That  a  fair  application  of  these  principles  requires  that  the  Le- 
eompton  constitution  should  be  submitted  to  a  direct  vote  of  the  actual  inhabi¬ 
tants  of  Kansas,  so  that  they  may  vote  for  or  against  that  instrument,  before 
Kansas  shall  be  declared  one  of  the  States  of  this  Union;  and  until  it  shall  be 
ratified  by  the  people  of  Kansas  at  a  fair  election  held  for  that  purpose,  the 
Illinois  Democracy  are  unalterably  opposed  to  the  admission  of  Kansas  under 
that  constitution.” 

I  will  furnish  to  the  reporter  the  whole  series,  and  ask  him  to  incorporate 
them  into  the  report,  as  furnishing  the  platform  upon  which  the  Illinois  Demo¬ 
cracy  stand,  and  by  which  I  intend  to  abide. 

“Colonel  McClernand,  from  the  committee  to  prepare  resolutions  for  the 
consideration  of  the  convention,  made  the  following  report ;  which  was  read, 
and,  on  motion,  each  resolution  was  separately  read  and  unanimously  adopted : 

“1.  Resolved,  That  the  Democratic  party  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  through 
their  delegates  in  general  convention  assembled,  do  reassert  and  declare  the 
principles  avowed  by  them  as  when,  on  former  occasions,  they  have  presented 
their  candidates  for  popular  suffrage. 

“  2.  Resolved,  That  they  are  unalterably  attached  to,  and  will  maintain  in¬ 
violate,  the  principles  declared  by  the  national  convention  at  Cincinnati  in 
June,  1856. 

“3.  Resolved,  That  they  avow,  with  renewed  energy,  their  devotion  to  the 
Federal  Union  of  the  United  States,  their  earnest  desire  to  avert  sectional  strife, 
their  determination  to  maintain  the  sovereignty  of  the  States,  and  to  protect 
every  State,  and  the  people  thereof,  in  all  their  constitutional  rights. 

“4.  Resolved,  That  the  platform  of  principles  established  by  the  national 
Democratic  convention  at  Cincinnati,  is  the  only  authoritative  exposition  of 
Democratic  doctrine,  and  they  deny  the  right  of  any  power  on  earth,  except  a 
like  body,  to  change  or  interpolate  that  platform,  or  to  prescribe  new’  and 
different'tests  ;  that  they  will  neither  do  it  themselves  nor  permit  it  to  be  done 
by  others,  but  will  recognize  all  men  as  Democrats  who  stand  by  and  uphold 
Democratic  principles. 

“  5.  Resolved,  That  in  the  organization  of  States,  the  people  have  a  right  to 
decide  at  the  polls  upon  the  character  of  their  fundamental  law,  and  that  the 
experience  of  the  past  year  has  conclusively  demonstrated  the  wisdom  and  pro¬ 
priety  of  the  principle,  that  the  fundamental  law,,  under  which  the  Territory 
seeks’  admission  into  the  Union,  should  be  submitted  to  the  people  of  such 
Territorv  for  their  ratification  or  rejection  at  a  fair  election  to  be  held  for  that 
purpose";  and  that,  before  such  Territary  is  admitted  as  a  State,  such  funda¬ 
mental  law  should  receive  a  majority  of  the  legal  votes  cast  at  such  election; 
and  they  deny  the  right,  and  condemn  the  attempt,  of  any  convention,  called 
for  the  purpose  of  framing  a  constitution,  to  impose  the  instrument  formed  by 
them  upon  the  people  against  their  known  will. 


4 


“6.  Resolved ,  That  a  fair  application  of  these  principles  requires  that  the 
Lecompton  constitution  should  be  submitted  to  a  direct  vote  of  the  actual  in¬ 
habitants  of  Kansas,  so  that  they  may  vote  for  or  against  that  instrument,  be¬ 
fore  Kansas  shall  be  declared  one  of  the  States  of  this  Union;  and  until  it  shall 
be  ratified  by  the  people  of  Kansas  at  a  fair  election  held  for  that  purpose,  the 
Illinois  Democracy  are  unalterably  opposed  to  the  admission  of  Kansas  under 
that  constitution. 

“7.  Resolved,  That  Ave  heartily  approve  and  sustain  the  manly,  firm,  patri¬ 
otic,  and  Democratic  position  of  S.  A.  Douglas,  Isaac  N.  Morris,  Thomas  L. 
Harris,  Aaron  Shaw,  Robert  Smith,  and  Samuel  S.  Marshall,  the  Democratic 
delegation  of  Illinois  in  Congress,  upon  the  question  of  the  admission  of  Kansas 
under  the  Lecompton  constitution ;  and  that,  by  their  firm  and  uncompromising 
devotion  to  Democratic  principles,  and  to  the  cause  of  justice,  right,  truth,  and 
the  people,  they  have  deserved  our  admiration,  increased,  if  possible,  our  confi¬ 
dence  in  their  integrity  and  patriotism,  and  merited  our  warm  approbation,  our 
sincere  and  hearty  thanks,  and  shall  receive  our  earnest  support. 

“8.  Resolved,  That  in  all  things  wherein  the  national  Administration  sustain 
and  carry  out  the  principles  of  the  Democratic  party  as  expressed  in  the  Cin¬ 
cinnati  platform,  and  affirmed  in  these  resolutions,  it  is  entitled  to,  and  will  re¬ 
ceive,  our  hearty  support.” 

There  the  Democracy  of  Illinois,  assembled  in  convention  under  the  circum¬ 
stances  which  I  have  stated,  have,  by  a  unanimous  voice,  declared  that  this  con¬ 
stitution  must  be  submitted  to  a  direct  vote  of  the  people  on  its  ratification  or 
rejection,  and  that  Kansas  must  never  come  m  under  it  unless,  on  such  a  direct 
vote,  at  a  fair  election,  the  people  shaH  decide  in  favor  of  admission  under 'it. 
Under  these  circumstances,  it  will  be  seen  that  I  stand  now,  as  I  have  stood  du¬ 
ring  the  whole  session,  with  the  Democracy  of  my  own  State,  firmly,  immova¬ 
bly,  in  favor  of  that  great  principle  of  popular  sovereignty,  which  leaves  the 
people  perfectly  free  either  to  take  the  Lecompton  constitution,  or  to  have  such 
other  one  as  they  may  choose  to  make. 

I  have  had  appeals  made  to  me  from  political  friends,  whom  I  respect  and 
esteem,  imploring  me  to  yield  this  great  principle  on  this  question,  in  consider¬ 
ation  of  so  many  concessions  being  made  on  the  other  side.  Some  of  that  glo¬ 
rious  band  of  Democrats  who  have  been  acting  with  me  on  this  question  during 
the  session,  have  felt  it  their  duty  thus  to  yield,  believing,  as  they  think,  that 
they  have  secured  a  substantial  triumph  in  this  great  contest.  Sir,  I  desire  no 
personal  triumph.  I  have  not  stoo  l  here  for  five  months  in  conflict  with  men 
with  whom  I  have  acted  a  whole  lifetime,  struggling  for  a  personal  triumph. 
Hence,  because  they  have  made  concessions,  that  fact  ought  not  to  change  my 
course,  unless  those  concessions  are  of  such  a  nature  as  to  give  me  the  principles 
for  which  I  contend. 

If  the  object  was  to  prove  that  the  Lecompton  men  had  backed  down,  and 
abandoned  their  original  ground,  I  could  parade  the  fact  that,  at  the  opening  of 
this  session,  we  were  told  that  Kansas  must  come  in  under  the  Lecompton  con¬ 
stitution  unconditionally,  or  else  that  four  States  would  secede  from  the  Union. 
It  was  then  to  be  an  unconditional  admission.  After  a  while,  upon  reflection, 
upon  investigation,  the  conclusion  was  arrived  at  that  it  was  wise  to  put  a 
clause  in  the  bill  in  some  way  recognizing  the  right  of  the  people  of  that  State 
to  change  their  constitution  before  1864,  although,  according  to  my  construction 
of  its  terms,  it  prohibited  any  change  until  that  period.  Here  was  a  concession 
made,  a  great  concession,  a  concession  which  I  never  could  have  made,  on  which¬ 
ever  side  of  the  question  I  may  have  been,  for  the  reason  that  I  do  not  believe 
that  Congress  have  any  right  to  alter  or  construe  authoritatively7  a  State  consti¬ 
tution. 

It  was  not  satisfactory  to  me  to  have  Congress,  in  pursuance  of  the  recom¬ 
mendation  of  the  President,  intervene  and  recognize,  by  any  implication,  the 
right  of  the  people  to  change  their  State  constitution  in  a  manner  different 
from  that  prescribed  in  the  instrument  itself.  I  deny  the  right  of  Congress  to 
exercise  any  such  power.  I  deny  the  right  of  Congress  to  intervene  and  au¬ 
thoritatively  construe  the  constitution  of  a  State.  If  the  constitution  was  their 
act  and  deed;  if  it  embodied  their  will — it  was  sacred,  and  it  ought  not  to  be 
touched  by  Congress  in  any  respect  whatever,  except  to  receive  it  uncondition- 


5 


ally,  or  reject  it  unconditionally.  That  concession  was  made ;  but  still  it  did 
not  reach  the  point  which  I  had  felt  it  my  duty  to  make.  It  did  not  come  to 
my  principle.  I  do  not  claim  that  Senators  are  under  any  more  obligation  to 
come  to  me  than  I  am  to  go  to  them.  I  claim  the  right  to  determine  for  myself, 
according  to  my  own  judgment  and  my  own  conscience,  what  my  duty  is  to  a 
great  fundamental  principle;  and  if  Senators  cannot  bring  the  bill  within  the 
principle,  I  must  exercise  my  right  and  duty  of  dissenting  from  it.  I  did  not 
think  that  concession  brought  it  within  the  principle,  or  obviated  any  of  my 
objections.  It  only  made  the  bill  more  obnoxious  to  me  by  violating  another 
principle  equally  sacred  in  our  political  system — that  of  the  sovereignty  of  the 
States. 

Next  came  the  declaration  that  the  free-State  Legislature  was  elected ;  and 
hence,  if  Kansas  was  forced  into  the  Union  with  a  pro-slavery  constitution, 
against  the  will  of  her  people,  it  would  not  last  long,  for  the  reason  that  there 
was  a  free-State  Legislature,  who  would  immediately  take  steps  to  change  it 
and  abolish  slavery.  That  argument  did  not  address  itself  favorably  to  my 
judgment,  for  the  reason  that  it  did  not  affect  the  principle  involved.  What 
difference  did  it  make,  so  far  as  the  principle  was  concerned,  whether  there  was 
a  majority  of  free-State  men  or  a  majority  of  pro-slavery  men  in  that  Legisla¬ 
ture?  [What  difference  did  it  make  to  me,  whether  there  was  a  majority  of 
Democrats,  or  a  majority  of  Republicans,  or  a  majority  of  Americans  in  that 
Legislature,  provided  they  were  fairly  and  honestly  elected?  If  the  people  of 
Kansas  desiyed  a  pro-slavery  Legislature^  they  had  a  right  to  it.  If  they  de¬ 
sired  a  Republican  Legislature,  they  had  a  right  to  it.  If  they  desired  an 
American  Legislature,  they  had  a  right  to  it.  If  they  desired  a  Legislature 
purely  Democratic,  elected  without  reference  to  the  question  of  slavery,  it  was 
their  right  to  select  such  a  one;  and,  sir,  it  wms  the  duty  of  Mr.  Calhoun  to  de¬ 
clare  those  elected  who  had  received  a  majority  of  the  legal  votes,  fairly  and 
honestly  returned.  The  declaration  of  that  result  could  not  change  the  princi¬ 
ple  involved  in  this  discussion,  for  the  great  principle  was,  shall  that  people  be 
left  perfectly  and  entirely  free  to  form  and  regulate  their  own  institutions  in 
their  own  way? 

These  various  concessions  could  not  control  votes  enough  to  carry  the  bill. 
What  next?  Then  comes  a  disagreement  between  the  two  Houses  of  Congress. 
The  Senate  insisting  upon  the  bill  which  it  had  passed  for  the  admission  of  Le- 
compton  unconditionally,  except  what  is  called  the  Pugh-Green  amendment; 
and  the  House  insisting  on  the  bill  which  it  had  passed  as  a  substitute,  known 
as  the  Crittenden-Montgomery  bill.  This  committee  of  conference  provide  for 
a  question  of  submission  to  the  people,  but  what  do  they  submit?  The  chair¬ 
man  of  that  committee  of  conference,  the  Senator  from  Missouri,  [Mr.  Green,] 
has  informed  you  that  the  constitution  is  not  submitted;  the  Senator  from  Vir¬ 
ginia,  [Mr.  Hunter,]  who  was  his  colleague  on  the  committee,  has  informed  you 
that  the  constitution  is  not  submitted;  and  I  believe  both  of  them  have  added 
that  they  would  not  vote  for  the  bill  if  the  constitution  was  submitted.  I  un¬ 
derstand  that  similar  declarations  have  been  made  in  the  other  House  of  Con¬ 
gress  by  the  members  of  the  committee  of  conference  there,  showing  that  this 
was  their  understanding  and  their  construction  of  the  bill. 

Then,  if  the  constitution  is  not  submitted;  if  the  people  are  not  allowed  to 
vote  for  it  or  against  it,  freely,  without  a  bounty  on  the  one  side  or  a  penalty 
on  the  other,  how  can  it  be  said  that  it  comes  within  that  great  principle  of 
popular  sovereignty  which,  I  insist,  ought  to  be  carried  out  in  all  the  Territories? 
It  is  no  answer  to  this  objection  to  tell  me  that  because  men  have  conceded  so 
much,  I  ought  to  concede.  No  matter  how  many  and  how  great  their  conces¬ 
sions  are,  if  they  have  not  conceded  the  principle  for  which  I  contend,  I  cannot 
take  what  they  propose.  It  is  not  for  me  to  say  whether  these  concessions  are 
right  or  wrong,  whether  they  are  wise  or  unwise.  It  is,  enough  for  me  that  the 
principle  for  which  I  insist  has  not  been  clearly  and  distinctly  recognized  in 
this  bill.  I  dislike  the  indirection  by  which  the  submission  is  proposed  to  be 
made — made  to  depend  on  a  land  grant.  In  order  to  enable  the  people  of  Kan¬ 
sas  to  reject  the  Lecompton  constitution,  you  compel  them  to  vote  against  a  land 
grant,  which  every  man,  woman,  and  child  in  the  Territory  would  desire  to 
have/  You  will  not  allow  them  to  take  the  land  grant  unless  they  take  tjie 


6 


constitution  with  it,  and  you  will  not  allow  them  to  proceed  immediately  and 
make  a  new  constitution,  with  the  same  population,  and  have  the  same  land 
grant,  if  they  reject  this.  If  you  did  that,  then  the  principle  would  be  fairly 
carried  out;  but  unless  you  do  allow  that  to  be  done,  I  insist  that  the  principle 
is  violated. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  I  can  say  to  you  very  frankly,  that  if  there  were  two 
amendments  made  to  this  bill,  although  it  would  still  be  somewhat  objectionable 
in  its  equivocal  features,  I  could  and  would  take  great  pleasure  in  giving  it  my 
support.  One  would  be  to  strike  out  the  land  grant  altogether,  and  the  other 
to  strike  out  the  limitation  as  to  population.  Then  the  simple  question  pre¬ 
sented  to  the  people  would  be,  will  you  come  in  under  the  Leeompton  constitu¬ 
tion  or  not?  and  if  you  do  not,  you  may  proceed  immediately,  with  the  same 
population,  to  make  a  new  constitution.  In  that  there  would  be  perfect  fairness; 
there  would  be  no  Congressional  intervention  with  its  inducements  to  control 
the  results.  Or,  if  you  wanted  to  leave  the  land  grant  in,  why  not  make  it  ap¬ 
plicable  to  the  new  constitution  as  well  as  the  old  one,  as  the  Crittenden  amend¬ 
ment  did?  Then  they  would  get  the  same  amount  of  land. under  the  one  as  the 
other.  In  other  words,  if  you  wish  to  make  this  proposition  fair,  you  must  give 
Kansas  the  same  land,  un^der  any  new  constitution  she  may  form,  as  you  do 
under  this  one,  and  you  must  allow  her  to  come  in  with  the  same  population 
under  the  one  as  under  the  other  constitution.  Then  there  Avould  be  fairness, 
then  there  would  be  equality. 

I  appeal  to  my  friend  from  Virginia  to  know  whether  he,  as  a  Southern  man, 
desires  to  see  the  principle  of  Congressional  intervention  to  control  and  influence 
the  voting  of  the  people  carried  out  hereafter  in  the  admission  of  new  States? 
The  time  may  come  when  the  case  will  be  reversed.  The  time  may  come  when 
there  will  be  an  anti-slavery  majority  in  both  Houses  of  Congress.  When  that 
time  comes,  it  may  so  happen  that  a  bill  may  be  brought  forward  with  a  land 
grant  of  ten  million  acres  for  a  free  State,  and  five  million  for  a  slave  State;  or 
allowing  a  free  State  to  come  in  with  a  population  of  forty  thousand,  and  pro¬ 
viding  that  a  slave  State  shall  not  come  in  without  ninety  thousand.  Would 
our  Southern  friends  regard  that  as  being  a  fair  interpretation  of  the  principle 
of  popular  sovereignty?  Would  they  not  say  that  was  the  most  dangerous  and 
unconstitutional  system  of  intervention  that  was  ever  devised,  when  the  Fed¬ 
eral  Government  steps  into  the  Territories,  and  by  its  bounties  on  one  side,  and 
its  penalties  on  the  other,  attempts  to  influence  and  control  the  action  of  the 
people  ? 

I  do  not  regard  this  as  a  matter  of  much  consequence  to  Kansas;  I  do  not 
believe  there  is  enough  in  this  bounty,  or  enough  in  this  penalty,  to  exercise 
any  material  influence  upon  the  people  of  Kansas  in  this  election  ;  but  it  in¬ 
volves  the  great  fundamental  principle,  it  involves  the  principle  of  freedom  of 
election,  and  it  involves  the  great  principle  of  self-government,  upon  which  our 
institutions  rest.  With  all  the  anxiety  that  I  have  had  to.be  able  to  arrive  at 
a  conclusion  in  harmony  with  the  overwhelming  majority  of  my  political  friends 
in  Congress,  I  could  not  bring  my  judgment  or  conscience  to  the  conclusion  that 
this  was  a  fair,  impartial,  and  equal  application  of  the  principle. 

There  is  another  objection  to  this  proposition,  one  that  looks  badly  upon  its 
face.  I  take  it  for  granted  that  it  was  intended  to  be  fair  and  just ;  but  it  gives 
cause  for  apprehension,  and  will  generate  suspicion  among  the  people  that  the 
election  under  it  will  not  be,  and  cannot  be,  fair.  I  allude  to  the  provision  as 
to  the  board  of  commissioners.  By  the  bill  framed  by  the  eminent  Senator 
from  Kentucky,  and  passed  by  the  House  of  Representatives,  there  was  to  be  a 
board  of  four  commissioners  to  superintend  the  election  on  the  constitution; 
two  representing  the  people  of  the  Territory,  being  the  presiding  officers  of  the 
two  branches  of  the  Legislature;  the  other  two  representing  the  Federal  Gov¬ 
ernment,  being  the  Governor  and  Secretary,  appointed  by  the  President  and 
the  Senate.  In  that  way,  two  commissioners  would  necessarily  be  of  one  class 
of  politics,  and  the  other  two  of  another  class  of  politics.  Under  that  state  of 
the  case,  it  is  not  probable  that  unfairness  would  have  been  perpetrated  in  the 
election.  Under  that  board,  as  prescribed  by  the  Senator  from  Kentucky,  you 
would  have  the  assurance,  from  the  very  law  itself,  that  one-half  of  the  judges 


7 


of  election  would  belong  to  one  party,  and  one  half  to  the  other;  that  one  half 
of  the  clerks  would  belong  to  one,  and  one  half  to  the  other. 

But  how  is  it  when  you  add  a  fifth  member  to  the  board,  and  provide  that 
the  board  shall  consist  of  five,  the  two  presiding  officers  of  the  Legislature,  and 
then  the  Governor,  Secretary,  and  the  district  attorney,  making  three  United 
States  officers,  and  declare  that  three  shall  constitute  the  board  ?  Is  it  not 
clear  that  if  these  three  gentlemen  choose,  they  can  have  all  the  judges  of  elec¬ 
tion  and  all  the  clerks  of  election  and  all  the  returning  officers  of  one  class  of 
political  faith,  the  same  as  Mr.  Calhoun  did  at  the  elections  which  took  place 
on  the  21st  of  December  and  the  first  Monday  of  January?  Does  not  the 
change  in  this  respect  give  ground  for  apprehension  that  you  may  have  the 
Oxford,  the  Shawnee,  and  the  Delaware  Crossing  and  Kickapoo  frauds  reenact¬ 
ed  at  this  election?  I  should  have  been  better  satisfied  if  it  had  been  left  as 
the  House  bill  left  it,  with  the  four  commissioners,  two  from  each  political 
party  in  Kansas,  two  representing  the  Federal  Government,  two  representing 
the  people  of  the  Territory,  requiring  three  to  be  a  quorum,  thus  rendering  it 
impossible  for  partisan  politics  to  control  the  action  of  the  board.  The  very 
fact  that  it  was  deemed  necessary  'or  wise  to  change  this  feature,  is  to  me  a 
serious  objection  to  this  proposition. 

Then,  sir,  what  is  my  duty  upon  this  question,  under  this  state  of  the  case? 
I  have  but  one  line  of  duty,  and  that  is  to  vote  against  the  bill ;  because,  in  my 
opinion,  there  is  not  a  fair  submission  to  the  people  under  such  vircumstances 
as  to  insure  an  unbiased  election  and  fair  returns.  I  have  indicated  two  amend¬ 
ments,  which,  if  they  had  been  made,  would  have  enabled  me  to  support  this 
bill,  notwithstanding  other  defects  in  it.  I  will  indicate  another.  I  am  willing 
to  subscribe  to  the  principle  that  a  Territory  shall  contain  the  requisite  popu- 
lation  for  a  member  of  Congress  before  admission,  provided  it  is  made  a  general 
law.  The  Senator  from  Ohio  [Mr.  Pugh]  yesterday  cited  me  as  authority  for 
that  provision  of  this  bill.  He  referred  to  my  report,  as  chairman  of  the  Com¬ 
mittee  on  Territories,  and  the  bill  accompanying  it,  in  1850,  in  which  I  then 
provided  that  Kansas  might  proceed  to  form  a  constitution  when  she  had  the 
requisite  population,  to  wit:  ninety-three  thousand  four  hundred  and  twenty, 
under  the  present  ratio.  That  was  my  judgment  then  of  the  true  rule  upon  the 
subject.  He  quotes  also  a  proposition  that  I  have  brought  in  at  this  very 
session  as  a  substitute  for  the  Arizona  bill,  providing  a  general  law  that  no 
Territory  shall  ever  form  a  constitution  and  State  government  until  it  has  the 
requisite  population  for  a  member  of  Congress.  1  am  for  that  proposition  now  ; 
and  if  Senators  will  consent  to  any  arrangement  by  which  you  can  strike  out 
the  whole  of  this  bill,  and,  in  lieu  of  it,  insert  a  provision  that  neither  Kansas, 
nor  any  other  Territory  of  the  United  States,  shall  proceed  to  form  a  constitu¬ 
tion  and  State  government  for  admission  into  the  Union  until  it  has  the  requi¬ 
site  population  for  a  member  of  Congress,  according  to  the  existing  Federal 
ratio,  I  will  give  it  my  support. 

But,  sir,  if  I  require  it  in  Kansas,  I  wish  to  require  it  in  other  Territories; 
and  if  I  am  to  apply  that  limitation  to  the  new  constitution  that  is  to  be  made, 
I  wish  to  apply  it  to  the  one  that  is  in  existence.  I  am  not  willing  to  prescribe 
one  ratio  to  one  kind  of  constitution,  and  another  ratio  to  another  kind.  Make 
it  uniform,  and  it  can  have  my  support.  I  have  on  all  proper  occasions  indi¬ 
cated  that  as  the  proper  rule — in  1856,  as  the  Senator  from  Ohio  proved  ;  at 
this  session  again,  as  he  proved  yesterday  by  reading  the  bill  offered  by  me; 
and  I  repeat  now  that,  if  you  will  strike  out  all  of  this  bill  but  the  clause  that 
Kansas  shall  not  come  in  until  she  has  the  requisite  population  for  a  member  of 
Congress,  and  then  say  that  this  section  is  incorporated  into  and  made  part  of 
the  organic  law  of  each  of  the  Territories  of  the  United  States,  and  that  none 
shall  come  for  admission  until  they  have  that  population,  I  will  give  it  my 
support. 

In  other  words,  Mr.  President,  I  desire  to  carry  out  the  principle  of  leaving 
the  people  to  decide  for  themselves  in  perfect  fairness.  I  will  support  no  rule 
applicable  to  the  North  that  does  not  apply  to  the  South.  I  will  make  no  rule 
applicable  to  the  South  that  I  am  not  willirfg  to  apply  to  the  North.  I  will 
not  intervene  either  for  slave  constitutions  or  against  slave  constitutions  by  an 
act  of  Congress,  holding  out  bounties  on  the  one  side  or  penalties  on  the  other. 


8 


Stand  on  the  great  principle  of  equality ;  leave  each  State  on  an  exact  footing 
with  every  other  State;  never  inquire  whether  her  institutions  are  of  this 
character  or  that  character;  never  inquire  whether  the  State  is  in  the  North  or 
in  the  South,  and  I  will  stand  with  you  and  apply  the  rule  with  exact  justice 
and  impartiality  in  every  instance. 

Mr.  President,  I  say  now,  as  I  am  about  to  take  leave  of  this  subject,  that  I 
never  can  consent  to  violate  that  great  principle  of  State  equalit}’,  of  State 
sovereignty,  of  popular  sovereignty,  by  any  discrimination,  either  in  the  one 
direction  or  in  the  other.  My  position  is  taken.  I  know  not  what  its  conse¬ 
quences  will  be  personally  to  me.  I  will  not  inquire  what  those  consequences 
may  be.  If  I  cannot  remain  in  public  life,  holding  firmly,  immovably,  to  the 
great  principle  of  self-government  and  State  equality,  I  shall  go  into  private 
life,  where  I  can  preserve  the  respect  of  my  own  conscience  under  the  convic¬ 
tion  that  I  have  done  my  duty  and  followed  the  principle  wherever  its  logical 
consequences  carried  me. 


Printed  by  Lemuel  Towers. 


* 


9 


